Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Uncertainty-based Fairness Measures

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2312.11299 v2 pith:HAJDZR2C submitted 2023-12-18 cs.LG cs.CYstat.ML

classification cs.LGcs.CYstat.ML
keywords measuresfairnessuncertaintiesexistingfairfirstgrouplevel
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Unfair predictions of machine learning (ML) models impede their broad acceptance in real-world settings. Tackling this arduous challenge first necessitates defining what it means for an ML model to be fair. This has been addressed by the ML community with various measures of fairness that depend on the prediction outcomes of the ML models, either at the group level or the individual level. These fairness measures are limited in that they utilize point predictions, neglecting their variances, or uncertainties, making them susceptible to noise, missingness and shifts in data. In this paper, we first show that an ML model may appear to be fair with existing point-based fairness measures but biased against a demographic group in terms of prediction uncertainties. Then, we introduce new fairness measures based on different types of uncertainties, namely, aleatoric uncertainty and epistemic uncertainty. We demonstrate on many datasets that (i) our uncertainty-based measures are complementary to existing measures of fairness, and (ii) they provide more insights about the underlying issues leading to bias.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Is Your Model Fairly Certain? Uncertainty-Aware Fairness Evaluation for LLMs

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    UCerF scores LLM fairness by both correctness and confidence, and SynthBias provides 31,756 gender-occupation coreference samples for benchmark testing.

Pith tools