Contextual Fairness-Aware Practices in ML: A Cost-Effective Empirical Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.15622v1
• Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2025 18:10:21 GMT
• Title: Contextual Fairness-Aware Practices in ML: A Cost-Effective Empirical Evaluation
• Authors: Alessandra Parziale, Gianmario Voria, Giammaria Giordano, Gemma Catolino, Gregorio Robles, Fabio Palomba,
• Abstract summary: We investigate fairness-aware practices from two perspectives: contextual and cost-effectiveness.<n>Our findings provide insights into how context influences the effectiveness of fairness-aware practices.<n>This research aims to guide SE practitioners in selecting practices that achieve fairness with minimal performance costs.
• Score: 48.943054662940916
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: As machine learning (ML) systems become central to critical decision-making, concerns over fairness and potential biases have increased. To address this, the software engineering (SE) field has introduced bias mitigation techniques aimed at enhancing fairness in ML models at various stages. Additionally, recent research suggests that standard ML engineering practices can also improve fairness; these practices, known as fairness-aware practices, have been cataloged across each stage of the ML development life cycle. However, fairness remains context-dependent, with different domains requiring customized solutions. Furthermore, existing specific bias mitigation methods may sometimes degrade model performance, raising ongoing discussions about the trade-offs involved. In this paper, we empirically investigate fairness-aware practices from two perspectives: contextual and cost-effectiveness. The contextual evaluation explores how these practices perform in various application domains, identifying areas where specific fairness adjustments are particularly effective. The cost-effectiveness evaluation considers the trade-off between fairness improvements and potential performance costs. Our findings provide insights into how context influences the effectiveness of fairness-aware practices. This research aims to guide SE practitioners in selecting practices that achieve fairness with minimal performance costs, supporting the development of ethical ML systems.

Related papers

• Revisiting LLM Evaluation through Mechanism Interpretability: a New Metric and Model Utility Law [99.56567010306807]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have become indispensable across academia, industry, and daily applications. We propose a novel metric, the Model Utilization Index (MUI), which introduces mechanism interpretability techniques to complement traditional performance metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-10T04:09:47Z)
• Data Preparation for Fairness-Performance Trade-Offs: A Practitioner-Friendly Alternative? [11.172805305320592]
  Pre-processing techniques, which mitigate bias before training, are effective but may impact model performance and pose integration difficulties. This report proposes an empirical evaluation of how optimally selected fairness-aware practices, applied in early ML lifecycle stages, can enhance both fairness and performance. Using FATE, we will analyze the fairness-performance trade-off, comparing pipelines selected by FATE with results by pre-processing bias mitigation techniques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-20T14:12:39Z)
• Analyzing Fairness of Computer Vision and Natural Language Processing Models [1.0923877073891446]
  Machine learning (ML) algorithms play a crucial role in decision making across diverse fields such as healthcare, finance, education, and law enforcement.<n>Despite their widespread adoption, these systems raise ethical and social concerns due to potential biases and fairness issues.<n>This study focuses on evaluating and improving the fairness of Computer Vision and Natural Language Processing (NLP) models applied to unstructured datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-13T06:35:55Z)
• Analyzing Fairness of Classification Machine Learning Model with Structured Dataset [1.0923877073891446]
  This study investigates the fairness of machine learning models applied to structured datasets in classification tasks. Three fairness libraries; Fairlearn by Microsoft, AIF360 by IBM, and the What If Tool by Google were employed. The research aims to assess the extent of bias in the ML models, compare the effectiveness of these libraries, and derive actionable insights for practitioners.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-13T06:31:09Z)
• Justice or Prejudice? Quantifying Biases in LLM-as-a-Judge [84.34545223897578]
  Despite their excellence in many domains, potential issues are under-explored, undermining their reliability and the scope of their utility. We identify 12 key potential biases and propose a new automated bias quantification framework-CALM- which quantifies and analyzes each type of bias in LLM-as-a-Judge. Our work highlights the need for stakeholders to address these issues and remind users to exercise caution in LLM-as-a-Judge applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T17:53:30Z)
• Ensuring Equitable Financial Decisions: Leveraging Counterfactual Fairness and Deep Learning for Bias [0.0]
  This research paper investigates advanced bias mitigation techniques, with a particular focus on counterfactual fairness in conjunction with data augmentation. The study looks into how these integrated approaches can lessen gender bias in the financial industry, specifically in loan approval procedures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-27T14:28:06Z)
• A Benchmark for Fairness-Aware Graph Learning [58.515305543487386]
  We present an extensive benchmark on ten representative fairness-aware graph learning methods. Our in-depth analysis reveals key insights into the strengths and limitations of existing methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-16T18:43:43Z)
• Towards Effective Evaluations and Comparisons for LLM Unlearning Methods [97.2995389188179]
  This paper seeks to refine the evaluation of machine unlearning for large language models. It addresses two key challenges -- the robustness of evaluation metrics and the trade-offs between competing goals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T14:41:00Z)
• MR-GSM8K: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Large Language Model Evaluation [60.65820977963331]
  We introduce a novel evaluation paradigm for Large Language Models (LLMs) This paradigm shifts the emphasis from result-oriented assessments, which often neglect the reasoning process, to a more comprehensive evaluation. By applying this paradigm in the GSM8K dataset, we have developed the MR-GSM8K benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-28T15:49:43Z)
• Fair Few-shot Learning with Auxiliary Sets [53.30014767684218]
  In many machine learning (ML) tasks, only very few labeled data samples can be collected, which can lead to inferior fairness performance. In this paper, we define the fairness-aware learning task with limited training samples as the emphfair few-shot learning problem. We devise a novel framework that accumulates fairness-aware knowledge across different meta-training tasks and then generalizes the learned knowledge to meta-test tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-28T06:31:37Z)
• Causality-Aided Trade-off Analysis for Machine Learning Fairness [11.149507394656709]
  This paper uses causality analysis as a principled method for analyzing trade-offs between fairness parameters and other crucial metrics in machine learning pipelines. We propose a set of domain-specific optimizations to facilitate accurate causal discovery and a unified, novel interface for trade-off analysis based on well-established causal inference methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T14:14:43Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.