Subgroups Matter for Robust Bias Mitigation

Anissa Alloula, Charles Jones, Ben Glocker, Bartlomiej Papiez
Proceedings of the 42nd International Conference on Machine Learning, PMLR 267:1228-1249, 2025.

Abstract

Despite the constant development of new bias mitigation methods for machine learning, no method consistently succeeds, and a fundamental question remains unanswered: when and why do bias mitigation techniques fail? In this paper, we hypothesise that a key factor may be the often-overlooked but crucial step shared by many bias mitigation methods: the definition of subgroups. To investigate this, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation of state-of-the-art bias mitigation methods across multiple vision and language classification tasks, systematically varying subgroup definitions, including coarse, fine-grained, intersectional, and noisy subgroups. Our findings reveal that subgroup choice significantly impacts performance, with certain groupings paradoxically leading to worse outcomes than no mitigation at all. They suggest that observing a disparity between a set of subgroups is not a sufficient reason to use those subgroups for mitigation. Through theoretical analysis, we explain these phenomena and uncover a counter-intuitive insight that, in some cases, improving fairness with respect to a particular set of subgroups is best achieved by using a different set of subgroups for mitigation. Our work highlights the importance of careful subgroup definition in bias mitigation and presents it as an alternative lever for improving the robustness and fairness of machine learning models.

Cite this Paper

BibTeX
@InProceedings{pmlr-v267-alloula25a, title = {Subgroups Matter for Robust Bias Mitigation}, author = {Alloula, Anissa and Jones, Charles and Glocker, Ben and Papiez, Bartlomiej}, booktitle = {Proceedings of the 42nd International Conference on Machine Learning}, pages = {1228--1249}, year = {2025}, editor = {Singh, Aarti and Fazel, Maryam and Hsu, Daniel and Lacoste-Julien, Simon and Berkenkamp, Felix and Maharaj, Tegan and Wagstaff, Kiri and Zhu, Jerry}, volume = {267}, series = {Proceedings of Machine Learning Research}, month = {13--19 Jul}, publisher = {PMLR}, pdf = {https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mlresearch/v267/main/assets/alloula25a/alloula25a.pdf}, url = {https://proceedings.mlr.press/v267/alloula25a.html}, abstract = {Despite the constant development of new bias mitigation methods for machine learning, no method consistently succeeds, and a fundamental question remains unanswered: when and why do bias mitigation techniques fail? In this paper, we hypothesise that a key factor may be the often-overlooked but crucial step shared by many bias mitigation methods: the definition of subgroups. To investigate this, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation of state-of-the-art bias mitigation methods across multiple vision and language classification tasks, systematically varying subgroup definitions, including coarse, fine-grained, intersectional, and noisy subgroups. Our findings reveal that subgroup choice significantly impacts performance, with certain groupings paradoxically leading to worse outcomes than no mitigation at all. They suggest that observing a disparity between a set of subgroups is not a sufficient reason to use those subgroups for mitigation. Through theoretical analysis, we explain these phenomena and uncover a counter-intuitive insight that, in some cases, improving fairness with respect to a particular set of subgroups is best achieved by using a different set of subgroups for mitigation. Our work highlights the importance of careful subgroup definition in bias mitigation and presents it as an alternative lever for improving the robustness and fairness of machine learning models.} }
Endnote
%0 Conference Paper %T Subgroups Matter for Robust Bias Mitigation %A Anissa Alloula %A Charles Jones %A Ben Glocker %A Bartlomiej Papiez %B Proceedings of the 42nd International Conference on Machine Learning %C Proceedings of Machine Learning Research %D 2025 %E Aarti Singh %E Maryam Fazel %E Daniel Hsu %E Simon Lacoste-Julien %E Felix Berkenkamp %E Tegan Maharaj %E Kiri Wagstaff %E Jerry Zhu %F pmlr-v267-alloula25a %I PMLR %P 1228--1249 %U https://proceedings.mlr.press/v267/alloula25a.html %V 267 %X Despite the constant development of new bias mitigation methods for machine learning, no method consistently succeeds, and a fundamental question remains unanswered: when and why do bias mitigation techniques fail? In this paper, we hypothesise that a key factor may be the often-overlooked but crucial step shared by many bias mitigation methods: the definition of subgroups. To investigate this, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation of state-of-the-art bias mitigation methods across multiple vision and language classification tasks, systematically varying subgroup definitions, including coarse, fine-grained, intersectional, and noisy subgroups. Our findings reveal that subgroup choice significantly impacts performance, with certain groupings paradoxically leading to worse outcomes than no mitigation at all. They suggest that observing a disparity between a set of subgroups is not a sufficient reason to use those subgroups for mitigation. Through theoretical analysis, we explain these phenomena and uncover a counter-intuitive insight that, in some cases, improving fairness with respect to a particular set of subgroups is best achieved by using a different set of subgroups for mitigation. Our work highlights the importance of careful subgroup definition in bias mitigation and presents it as an alternative lever for improving the robustness and fairness of machine learning models.
APA
Alloula, A., Jones, C., Glocker, B. & Papiez, B.. (2025). Subgroups Matter for Robust Bias Mitigation. Proceedings of the 42nd International Conference on Machine Learning, in Proceedings of Machine Learning Research 267:1228-1249 Available from https://proceedings.mlr.press/v267/alloula25a.html.

Related Material