The Role of Uncertainty in Assessing the Fairness of Machine Learning Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.07959v1
• Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2026 20:34:59 GMT
• Title: The Role of Uncertainty in Assessing the Fairness of Machine Learning Models
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 0.5097809301149341
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Machine learning models are widely used in clinical applications, social media, law enforcement and critical infrastructure. 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. A rigorous risk assessment of possible fairness violations requires quantifying the uncertainty associated with selecting and estimating such models. Yet, this is rarely done in the literature, which focuses on identifying a single model with a suitable trade-off between predictive accuracy and fairness. In this paper, we move beyond point estimation and discuss frequentist and Bayesian approaches to uncertainty quantification for fair machine learning, with practical examples and implications for simulated and real data.

Related papers

• When Fairness Metrics Disagree: Evaluating the Reliability of Demographic Fairness Assessment in Machine Learning [0.0]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-16T14:07:37Z)
• 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 and Robustness in Machine Unlearning [20.758637391023345]
  We focus on fairness and robustness in machine unlearning algorithms.<n>Experiments demonstrate the vulnerability of current state-of-the-art approximated unlearning algorithms to adversarial attacks.<n>We demonstrate that unlearning in the intermediate and last layers is sufficient and cost-effective for time and memory complexity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-18T10:31:44Z)
• Achievable Fairness on Your Data With Utility Guarantees [16.78730663293352]
  In machine learning fairness, training models that minimize disparity across different sensitive groups often leads to diminished accuracy. We present a computationally efficient approach to approximate the fairness-accuracy trade-off curve tailored to individual datasets. We introduce a novel methodology for quantifying uncertainty in our estimates, thereby providing practitioners with a robust framework for auditing model fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-27T00:59:32Z)
• Learning for Counterfactual Fairness from Observational Data [62.43249746968616]
  Fairness-aware machine learning aims to eliminate biases of learning models against certain subgroups described by certain protected (sensitive) attributes such as race, gender, and age. A prerequisite for existing methods to achieve counterfactual fairness is the prior human knowledge of the causal model for the data. In this work, we address the problem of counterfactually fair prediction from observational data without given causal models by proposing a novel framework CLAIRE.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-17T04:08:29Z)
• Fairness in Matching under Uncertainty [78.39459690570531]
  algorithmic two-sided marketplaces have drawn attention to the issue of fairness in such settings. We axiomatize a notion of individual fairness in the two-sided marketplace setting which respects the uncertainty in the merits. We design a linear programming framework to find fair utility-maximizing distributions over allocations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-08T00:30:32Z)
• Rethinking and Recomputing the Value of Machine Learning Models [16.06614967567121]
  We argue that the prevailing approach to training and evaluating machine learning models often fails to consider their real-world application.<n>Traditional metrics like accuracy and f-score fail to capture the beneficial value of models in such hybrid settings.<n>We introduce a simple yet theoretically sound "value" metric that incorporates task-specific costs for correct predictions, errors, and rejections.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-30T01:02:31Z)
• Measuring Fairness Under Unawareness of Sensitive Attributes: A Quantification-Based Approach [131.20444904674494]
  We tackle the problem of measuring group fairness under unawareness of sensitive attributes. We show that quantification approaches are particularly suited to tackle the fairness-under-unawareness problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-17T13:45:46Z)
• Trust but Verify: Assigning Prediction Credibility by Counterfactual Constrained Learning [123.3472310767721]
  Prediction credibility measures are fundamental in statistics and machine learning. These measures should account for the wide variety of models used in practice. The framework developed in this work expresses the credibility as a risk-fit trade-off.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-24T19:52:38Z)
• Accurate and Robust Feature Importance Estimation under Distribution Shifts [49.58991359544005]
  PRoFILE is a novel feature importance estimation method. We show significant improvements over state-of-the-art approaches, both in terms of fidelity and robustness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-30T05:29:01Z)
• Fair inference on error-prone outcomes [0.0]
  We show that, when an error-prone proxy target is used, existing methods to assess and calibrate fairness criteria do not extend to the true target variable of interest. We suggest a framework resulting from the combination of fair ML methods and measurement models found in the statistical literature. In a healthcare decision problem, we find that using a latent variable model to account for measurement error removes the unfairness detected previously.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-17T10:31:59Z)

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.