Does enforcing fairness mitigate biases caused by subpopulation shift?
Subha Maity; Debarghya Mukherjee; Mikhail Yurochkin; Yuekai Sun · 2020 · arXiv
WASTE classifies this as Negative / Null Result Report · AI classification, approximate
The study found no significant effect — useful as a negative control or null benchmark for your own design.
Abstract (excerpt)
Many instances of algorithmic bias are caused by subpopulation shifts. For example, ML models often perform worse on demographic groups that are underrepresented in the training data. In this paper, we study whether enforcing algorithmic fairness during training improves the performance of the trained model in the \emph{target domain}. On one hand, we conceive scenarios in which enforcing fairness does not improve performance in the target domain. In fact, it may even harm performance. On the other hand, we derive necessary and sufficient conditions under which enforcing algorithmic fairness l
Excerpt shown for reference under fair use — read the full paper at the publisher.
About to run something similar?
Run an AI Precheck on your own design to catch failure modes like this one before you spend the time. Your first desk check is free.
Related failures
Channeling Fisher: Randomization Tests and the Statistical Insignificance of Seemingly Significant Experimental Results*
Negative / Null Result ReportThe harmonic mean p -value for combining dependent tests
Negative / Null Result ReportGeneralizability of heterogeneous treatment effect estimates across samples
Negative / Null Result ReportNumerical predictors of arithmetic success in grades 1–6
Negative / Null Result ReportMethods Matter: p-Hacking and Publication Bias in Causal Analysis in Economics
Negative / Null Result ReportShould multiple imputation be the method of choice for handling missing data in randomized trials?
WASTE indexes this work — it does not host or republish it. Failure-type classification is automated and approximate.
Metadata source: arXiv