Evolved SampleWeights for Bias Mitigation: Effectiveness Depends on Optimization Objectives

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.20909v1
• Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2025 22:50:59 GMT
• Title: Evolved SampleWeights for Bias Mitigation: Effectiveness Depends on Optimization Objectives
• Authors: Anil K. Saini, Jose Guadalupe Hernandez, Emily F. Wong, Debanshi Misra, Jason H. Moore,
• Abstract summary: Machine learning models trained on real-world data may inadvertently make biased predictions that negatively impact marginalized communities.<n>Reweighting is a method that can mitigate such bias in model predictions by assigning a weight to each data point used during model training.<n>We show that evolved sample weights can produce models that achieve better trade-offs between fairness and predictive performance than alternative weighting methods.
• Score: 0.36569643583149225
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Machine learning models trained on real-world data may inadvertently make biased predictions that negatively impact marginalized communities. Reweighting is a method that can mitigate such bias in model predictions by assigning a weight to each data point used during model training. In this paper, we compare three methods for generating these weights: (1) evolving them using a Genetic Algorithm (GA), (2) computing them using only dataset characteristics, and (3) assigning equal weights to all data points. Model performance under each strategy was evaluated using paired predictive and fairness metrics, which also served as optimization objectives for the GA during evolution. Specifically, we used two predictive metrics (accuracy and area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve) and two fairness metrics (demographic parity difference and subgroup false negative fairness). Using experiments on eleven publicly available datasets (including two medical datasets), we show that evolved sample weights can produce models that achieve better trade-offs between fairness and predictive performance than alternative weighting methods. However, the magnitude of these benefits depends strongly on the choice of optimization objectives. Our experiments reveal that optimizing with accuracy and demographic parity difference metrics yields the largest number of datasets for which evolved weights are significantly better than other weighting strategies in optimizing both objectives.

Related papers

• Efficient Data Selection at Scale via Influence Distillation [53.03573620682107]
  This paper introduces Influence Distillation, a mathematicallyjustified framework for data selection.<n>By distilling each sample's influence on a target distribution, our method assigns model-specific weights that are used to select training data.<n>Experiments show that Influence Distillation matches or outperforms state-of-the-art performance while achieving up to $3.5times$ faster selection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-25T09:08:00Z)
• Self-Boost via Optimal Retraining: An Analysis via Approximate Message Passing [58.52119063742121]
  Retraining a model using its own predictions together with the original, potentially noisy labels is a well-known strategy for improving the model performance.<n>This paper addresses the question of how to optimally combine the model's predictions and the provided labels.<n>Our main contribution is the derivation of the Bayes optimal aggregator function to combine the current model's predictions and the given labels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-21T07:16:44Z)
• What Do Learning Dynamics Reveal About Generalization in LLM Reasoning? [83.83230167222852]
  We find that a model's generalization behavior can be effectively characterized by a training metric we call pre-memorization train accuracy. By connecting a model's learning behavior to its generalization, pre-memorization train accuracy can guide targeted improvements to training strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-12T09:52:40Z)
• Optimizing importance weighting in the presence of sub-population shifts [0.0]
  A distribution shift between the training and test data can severely harm performance of machine learning models. We argue that existing weightings for determining the weights are suboptimal, as they neglect the increase of the variance of the estimated model due to the finite sample size of the training data. We propose a bi-level optimization procedure in which the weights and model parameters are optimized simultaneously.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T09:21:10Z)
• AutoScale: Scale-Aware Data Mixing for Pre-Training LLMs [59.12061830645018]
  We show that data mixtures that perform well at smaller scales may not retain their advantage at larger scales.<n>We propose AutoScale, a two-stage, scale-aware data composition framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-29T17:06:30Z)
• Scaling Laws for Sparsely-Connected Foundation Models [70.41266138010657]
  We explore the impact of parameter sparsity on the scaling behavior of Transformers trained on massive datasets. We identify the first scaling law describing the relationship between weight sparsity, number of non-zero parameters, and amount of training data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-15T16:29:27Z)
• Boosting Fair Classifier Generalization through Adaptive Priority Reweighing [59.801444556074394]
  A performance-promising fair algorithm with better generalizability is needed. This paper proposes a novel adaptive reweighing method to eliminate the impact of the distribution shifts between training and test data on model generalizability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-15T13:04:55Z)
• FORML: Learning to Reweight Data for Fairness [2.105564340986074]
  We introduce Fairness Optimized Reweighting via Meta-Learning (FORML) FORML balances fairness constraints and accuracy by jointly optimizing training sample weights and a neural network's parameters. We show that FORML improves equality of opportunity fairness criteria over existing state-of-the-art reweighting methods by approximately 1% on image classification tasks and by approximately 5% on a face prediction task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-03T17:36:07Z)
• Improved Fine-tuning by Leveraging Pre-training Data: Theory and Practice [52.11183787786718]
  Fine-tuning a pre-trained model on the target data is widely used in many deep learning applications. Recent studies have empirically shown that training from scratch has the final performance that is no worse than this pre-training strategy. We propose a novel selection strategy to select a subset from pre-training data to help improve the generalization on the target task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-24T06:18:32Z)
• BiFair: Training Fair Models with Bilevel Optimization [8.2509884277533]
  We develop a new training algorithm, named BiFair, which jointly minimizes for a utility, and a fairness loss of interest. Our algorithm consistently performs better, i.e., we reach to better values of a given fairness metric under same, or higher accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-03T22:36:17Z)
• A Comparison of Methods for Treatment Assignment with an Application to Playlist Generation [13.804332504576301]
  We group the various methods proposed in the literature into three general classes of algorithms (or metalearners) We show analytically and empirically that optimizing for the prediction of outcomes or causal effects is not the same as optimizing for treatment assignments. This is the first comparison of the three different metalearners on a real-world application at scale.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-24T04:56:15Z)

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.