Software Fairness Dilemma: Is Bias Mitigation a Zero-Sum Game?
Zhenpeng Chen, Xinyue Li, Jie M. Zhang, Weisong Sun, Ying Xiao, Tianlin Li, Yiling Lou, Yang Liu
Abstract
Fairness is a critical requirement for Machine Learning (ML) software, driving the development of numerous bias mitigation methods. Previous research has identified a leveling-down effect in bias mitigation for computer vision and natural language processing tasks, where fairness is achieved by lowering performance for all groups without benefiting the unprivileged group. However, it remains unclear whether this effect applies to bias mitigation for tabular data tasks, a key area in fairness research with significant real-world applications. This study evaluates eight bias mitigation methods for tabular data, including both widely used and cutting-edge approaches, across 44 tasks using five real-world datasets and four common ML models. Contrary to earlier findings, our results show that these methods operate in a zero-sum fashion, where improvements for unprivileged groups are related to reduced benefits for traditionally privileged groups. However, previous research indicates that the perception of a zero-sum trade-off might complicate the broader adoption of fairness policies. To explore alternatives, we investigate an approach that applies the state-of-the-art bias mitigation method solely to unprivileged groups, showing potential to enhance benefits of unprivileged groups without negatively affecting privileged groups or overall ML performance. Our study highlights potential pathways for achieving fairness improvements without zero-sum trade-offs, which could help advance the adoption of bias mitigation methods.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 5c4c1641-1a3e-4a4a-8bd8-b8801bbca9f5Cited by top-tier papers2
- Fairness Testing of Large Language Models in Role-PlayingXinyue Li, Zhenpeng Chen, Jie M. Zhang, Ying Xiao et al.FSE 2026 · 5 citations
- Fairness Is Not Just Ethical: Performance Trade-Off via Data Correlation Tuning to Mitigate Bias in ML SoftwareYing Xiao, Shangwen Wang, Sicen Liu, Dingyuan Xue et al.ICSE 2026
Builds on18
- Bias in machine learning software: why? how? what to do?Joymallya Chakraborty, Suvodeep Majumder, Tim MenziesFSE 2021 · 186 citations
- Fairway: a way to build fair ML softwareJoymallya Chakraborty, Suvodeep Majumder, Zhe Yu, Tim MenziesFSE 2020 · 131 citations
- Fair preprocessing: towards understanding compositional fairness of data transformers in machine learning pipelineSumon Biswas, Hridesh RajanFSE 2021 · 101 citations
- Do the machine learning models on a crowd sourced platform exhibit bias? an empirical study on model fairnessSumon Biswas, Hridesh RajanFSE 2020 · 96 citations
- Problems and Opportunities in Training Deep Learning Software Systems: An Analysis of VarianceHung Viet Pham, Shangshu Qian, Jiannan Wang, Thibaud Lutellier et al.ASE 2020 · 91 citations
Related papers
- Subgroups Matter for Robust Bias MitigationAnissa Alloula, Charles Jones, Ben Glocker, Bartlomiej W. PapiezICML 2025
- Fairness Improvement with Multiple Protected Attributes: How Far Are We?Zhenpeng Chen, Jie M. Zhang, Federica Sarro, Mark HarmanICSE 2024 · 33 citations
- Unprocessing Seven Years of Algorithmic FairnessAndré F. Cruz, Moritz HardtICLR 2024 · 21 citations
- AIM: Attributing, Interpreting, Mitigating Data UnfairnessZhining Liu, Ruizhong Qiu, Zhichen Zeng, Yada Zhu et al.KDD 2024 · 4 citations
- Leveling Down in Computer Vision: Pareto Inefficiencies in Fair Deep ClassifiersDominik Zietlow, Michael Lohaus, Guha Balakrishnan, Matthäus Kleindessner et al.CVPR 2022 · 33 citations
