No evaluation without fair representation : Impact of label and selection bias on the evaluation, performance and mitigation of classification models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.09662v1
• Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2026 13:34:53 GMT
• Title: No evaluation without fair representation : Impact of label and selection bias on the evaluation, performance and mitigation of classification models
• Abstract summary: We empirically analyze the effect of label bias and several subtypes of selection bias on the evaluation of classification models.<n>We introduce a biasing and evaluation framework that allows to model fair worlds and their biased counterparts.
• Score: 1.529342790344802
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Bias can be introduced in diverse ways in machine learning datasets, for example via selection or label bias. Although these bias types in themselves have an influence on important aspects of fair machine learning, their different impact has been understudied. In this work, we empirically analyze the effect of label bias and several subtypes of selection bias on the evaluation of classification models, on their performance, and on the effectiveness of bias mitigation methods. We also introduce a biasing and evaluation framework that allows to model fair worlds and their biased counterparts through the introduction of controlled bias in real-life datasets with low discrimination. Using our framework, we empirically analyze the impact of each bias type independently, while obtaining a more representative evaluation of models and mitigation methods than with the traditional use of a subset of biased data as test set. Our results highlight different factors that influence how impactful bias is on model performance. They also show an absence of trade-off between fairness and accuracy, and between individual and group fairness, when models are evaluated on a test set that does not exhibit unwanted bias. They furthermore indicate that the performance of bias mitigation methods is influenced by the type of bias present in the data. Our findings call for future work to develop more accurate evaluations of prediction models and fairness interventions, but also to better understand other types of bias, more complex scenarios involving the combination of different bias types, and other factors that impact the efficiency of the mitigation methods, such as dataset characteristics.

Related papers

• The Unfairness of Multifactorial Bias in Recommendation [68.35079031029616]
  Popularity bias and positivity bias are prominent sources of bias in recommender systems.<n>In this work, we examine how multifactorial bias influences item-side fairness.<n>We adapt a percentile-based rating transformation as a pre-processing strategy to mitigate multifactorial bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-19T08:37:43Z)
• Understanding challenges to the interpretation of disaggregated evaluations of algorithmic fairness [49.35494016290887]
  We show that equal performance across subgroups is an unreliable measure of fairness when data are representative of relevant populations but reflective of real-world disparities.<n>Our framework suggests complementing disaggregated evaluations with explicit causal assumptions and analysis to control for confounding and distribution shift.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-04T17:40:31Z)
• Improving Bias Mitigation through Bias Experts in Natural Language Understanding [10.363406065066538]
  We propose a new debiasing framework that introduces binary classifiers between the auxiliary model and the main model. Our proposed strategy improves the bias identification ability of the auxiliary model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-06T16:15:00Z)
• Causality and Independence Enhancement for Biased Node Classification [56.38828085943763]
  We propose a novel Causality and Independence Enhancement (CIE) framework, applicable to various graph neural networks (GNNs) Our approach estimates causal and spurious features at the node representation level and mitigates the influence of spurious correlations. Our approach CIE not only significantly enhances the performance of GNNs but outperforms state-of-the-art debiased node classification methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-14T13:56:24Z)
• Echoes: Unsupervised Debiasing via Pseudo-bias Labeling in an Echo Chamber [17.034228910493056]
  This paper presents experimental analyses revealing that the existing biased models overfit to bias-conflicting samples in the training data. We propose a straightforward and effective method called Echoes, which trains a biased model and a target model with a different strategy. Our approach achieves superior debiasing results compared to the existing baselines on both synthetic and real-world datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-06T13:13:18Z)
• When mitigating bias is unfair: multiplicity and arbitrariness in algorithmic group fairness [8.367620276482056]
  We introduce the FRAME (FaiRness Arbitrariness and Multiplicity Evaluation) framework, which evaluates bias mitigation through five dimensions. Applying FRAME to various bias mitigation approaches across key datasets allows us to exhibit significant differences in the behaviors of debiasing methods. These findings highlight the limitations of current fairness criteria and the inherent arbitrariness in the debiasing process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-14T16:53:52Z)
• Systematic Evaluation of Predictive Fairness [60.0947291284978]
  Mitigating bias in training on biased datasets is an important open problem. We examine the performance of various debiasing methods across multiple tasks. We find that data conditions have a strong influence on relative model performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-17T05:40:13Z)
• Learning Debiased Models with Dynamic Gradient Alignment and Bias-conflicting Sample Mining [39.00256193731365]
  Deep neural networks notoriously suffer from dataset biases which are detrimental to model robustness, generalization and fairness. We propose a two-stage debiasing scheme to combat against the intractable unknown biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-25T14:50:10Z)
• Balancing out Bias: Achieving Fairness Through Training Reweighting [58.201275105195485]
  Bias in natural language processing arises from models learning characteristics of the author such as gender and race. Existing methods for mitigating and measuring bias do not directly account for correlations between author demographics and linguistic variables. This paper introduces a very simple but highly effective method for countering bias using instance reweighting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-16T23:40:28Z)
• Learning Debiased Representation via Disentangled Feature Augmentation [19.348340314001756]
  This paper presents an empirical analysis revealing that training with "diverse" bias-conflicting samples is crucial for debiasing. We propose a novel feature-level data augmentation technique in order to synthesize diverse bias-conflicting samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-03T08:03:25Z)
• LOGAN: Local Group Bias Detection by Clustering [86.38331353310114]
  We argue that evaluating bias at the corpus level is not enough for understanding how biases are embedded in a model. We propose LOGAN, a new bias detection technique based on clustering. Experiments on toxicity classification and object classification tasks show that LOGAN identifies bias in a local region.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-06T16:42:51Z)

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.