When Fairness Metrics Disagree: Evaluating the Reliability of Demographic Fairness Assessment in Machine Learning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.15038v1
• Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2026 14:07:37 GMT
• Title: When Fairness Metrics Disagree: Evaluating the Reliability of Demographic Fairness Assessment in Machine Learning
• Abstract summary: We investigate the consistency of fairness evaluation by conducting a systematic multi-metric analysis of demographic bias in machine learning models.<n>Our results demonstrate that fairness assessments can vary significantly depending on the choice of metrics, leading to contradictory conclusions regarding model bias.<n>These findings highlight a critical limitation in current fairness evaluation practices and suggest that single-metric reporting is insufficient for reliable bias assessment.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The evaluation of fairness in machine learning systems has become a central concern in high-stakes applications, including biometric recognition, healthcare decision-making, and automated risk assessment. Existing approaches typically rely on a small number of fairness metrics to assess model behaviour across group partitions, implicitly assuming that these metrics provide consistent and reliable conclusions. However, different fairness metrics capture distinct statistical properties of model performance and may therefore produce conflicting assessments when applied to the same system. In this work, we investigate the consistency of fairness evaluation by conducting a systematic multi-metric analysis of demographic bias in machine learning models. Using face recognition as a controlled experimental setting, we evaluate model performance across multiple group partitions under a range of commonly used fairness metrics, including error-rate disparities and performance-based measures. Our results demonstrate that fairness assessments can vary significantly depending on the choice of metrics, leading to contradictory conclusions regarding model bias. To quantify this phenomenon, we introduce the Fairness Disagreement Index (FDI), a measure designed to capture the degree of inconsistency across fairness metrics. We further show that disagreement remains high across thresholds and model configurations. These findings highlight a critical limitation in current fairness evaluation practices and suggest that single-metric reporting is insufficient for reliable bias assessment.

Related papers

• The Role of Uncertainty in Assessing the Fairness of Machine Learning Models [0.5097809301149341]
  Machine learning models are widely used in clinical applications, social media, law enforcement and critical infrastructure.<n> verifying whether their outputs are biased against disadvantaged groups or individuals is crucial to ensuring they are fair and allowing their use in such settings.<n>A rigorous risk assessment of possible fairness violations requires quantifying the uncertainty associated with selecting and estimating such models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-07T20:34:59Z)
• Why Aggregate Accuracy is Inadequate for Evaluating Fairness in Law Enforcement Facial Recognition Systems [0.0]
  This paper argues that aggregate accuracy is an insufficient metric for evaluating the fairness and reliability of facial recognition systems.<n> Empirical observations show that systems with similar overall accuracy can exhibit substantially different fairness profiles.<n>It highlights the importance of fairness-aware evaluation approaches and model-agnostic auditing strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-30T16:56:54Z)
• 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)
• Fairness Evaluation with Item Response Theory [10.871079276188649]
  This paper proposes a novel Fair-IRT framework to evaluate fairness in Machine Learning (ML) models. Detailed explanations for item characteristic curves (ICCs) are provided for particular individuals. Experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of this framework as a fairness evaluation tool.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-20T22:25:20Z)
• Comprehensive Equity Index (CEI): Definition and Application to Bias Evaluation in Biometrics [47.762333925222926]
  We present a novel metric to quantify biased behaviors of machine learning models. We focus on and apply it to the operational evaluation of face recognition systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-03T14:19:38Z)
• Gender Biases in Automatic Evaluation Metrics for Image Captioning [87.15170977240643]
  We conduct a systematic study of gender biases in model-based evaluation metrics for image captioning tasks. We demonstrate the negative consequences of using these biased metrics, including the inability to differentiate between biased and unbiased generations. We present a simple and effective way to mitigate the metric bias without hurting the correlations with human judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T04:27:40Z)
• 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)
• Evaluation Gaps in Machine Learning Practice [13.963766987258161]
  In practice, evaluations of machine learning models frequently focus on a narrow range of decontextualized predictive behaviours. We examine the evaluation gaps between the idealized breadth of evaluation concerns and the observed narrow focus of actual evaluations. By studying these properties, we demonstrate the machine learning discipline's implicit assumption of a range of commitments which have normative impacts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-11T04:00:44Z)
• Measuring Fairness of Text Classifiers via Prediction Sensitivity [63.56554964580627]
  ACCUMULATED PREDICTION SENSITIVITY measures fairness in machine learning models based on the model's prediction sensitivity to perturbations in input features. We show that the metric can be theoretically linked with a specific notion of group fairness (statistical parity) and individual fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-16T15:00:33Z)
• Estimating and Improving Fairness with Adversarial Learning [65.99330614802388]
  We propose an adversarial multi-task training strategy to simultaneously mitigate and detect bias in the deep learning-based medical image analysis system. Specifically, we propose to add a discrimination module against bias and a critical module that predicts unfairness within the base classification model. We evaluate our framework on a large-scale public-available skin lesion dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-07T03:10:32Z)

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.