Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

FairlyUncertain: A Comprehensive Benchmark of Uncertainty in Algorithmic Fairness

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 2410.02005 v1 pith:ORMA244H submitted 2024-10-02 cs.LG stat.ML

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

Fair predictive algorithms hinge on both equality and trust, yet inherent uncertainty in real-world data challenges our ability to make consistent, fair, and calibrated decisions. While fairly managing predictive error has been extensively explored, some recent work has begun to address the challenge of fairly accounting for irreducible prediction uncertainty. However, a clear taxonomy and well-specified objectives for integrating uncertainty into fairness remains undefined. We address this gap by introducing FairlyUncertain, an axiomatic benchmark for evaluating uncertainty estimates in fairness. Our benchmark posits that fair predictive uncertainty estimates should be consistent across learning pipelines and calibrated to observed randomness. Through extensive experiments on ten popular fairness datasets, our evaluation reveals: (1) A theoretically justified and simple method for estimating uncertainty in binary settings is more consistent and calibrated than prior work; (2) Abstaining from binary predictions, even with improved uncertainty estimates, reduces error but does not alleviate outcome imbalances between demographic groups; (3) Incorporating consistent and calibrated uncertainty estimates in regression tasks improves fairness without any explicit fairness interventions. Additionally, our benchmark package is designed to be extensible and open-source, to grow with the field. By providing a standardized framework for assessing the interplay between uncertainty and fairness, FairlyUncertain paves the way for more equitable and trustworthy machine learning practices.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Selective Contrastive Learning for Weakly Supervised Affordance Grounding

    cs.CV 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    The full text argues that selective friction (flagging uncertain AI predictions) is less likely to cause unlawful discrimination under UK law than selective abstention (withholding them).

  2. Scrutinizing Index-Based Risk Assessments: A Case Study in NYC Decision-making for Heat Emergency Management

    cs.CY 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Sensitivity analyses of NYC heat emergency indices show that reasonable variations in input variables and spatial scale lead to substantially different risk scores affecting downstream government decisions.

Pith tools