Rethinking Fairness Metrics for Multi-Class and Multi-Group Assessment: Not Everything is Binary

Artificial Intelligence, and Machine Learning in general, is becoming pervasive across all domains and disciplines. By means of this data-driven approach, algorithms can learns complex task just by learning from samples. However, if the data-set is biased, they might lead to the development of unfair computer systems, that is, characterised by a prejudice towards specific individuals or groups, which might get an unmotivated output from the system. This circumstance lead to the development of multiple metrics designed to quantify the level of unfairness of an algorithm. However, a generalised assumption in the literature is that the sensitive features and the output labels are binary. When the data is not binary, it is forcefully binarized using a one-versus-the-rest simplification. In this work, we discuss the limitations of existing metrics and propose novel, mathematically sound, and generalized multi-group and multi-class formulations of the metrics. Ultimately, our results highlight the empirical assessment distortion caused by binarization strategies, which reveals the limitations of binary fairness metrics in the multi class setting.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
arXiv (Cornell University)
Published
2026-11-02
DOI
https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2611.03257
Primary Topic
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Type
preprint
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
preprint

Rethinking Fairness Metrics for Multi-Class and Multi-Group Assessment: Not Everything is Binary

Marco Salvatore Nobile, Matteo Grazioso, Chiara Gallese, Fabio Naccarella
arXiv (Cornell University)
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
preprint

Rethinking Fairness Metrics for Multi-Class and Multi-Group Assessment: Not Everything is Binary

Marco Salvatore Nobile, Matteo Grazioso, Chiara Gallese, Fabio Naccarella
preprint en

Abstract

Artificial Intelligence, and Machine Learning in general, is becoming pervasive across all domains and disciplines. By means of this data-driven approach, algorithms can learns complex task just by learning from samples. However, if the data-set is biased, they might lead to the development of unfair computer systems, that is, characterised by a prejudice towards specific individuals or groups, which might get an unmotivated output from the system. This circumstance lead to the development of multiple metrics designed to quantify the level of unfairness of an algorithm. However, a generalised assumption in the literature is that the sensitive features and the output labels are binary. When the data is not binary, it is forcefully binarized using a one-versus-the-rest simplification. In this work, we discuss the limitations of existing metrics and propose novel, mathematically sound, and generalized multi-group and multi-class formulations of the metrics. Ultimately, our results highlight the empirical assessment distortion caused by binarization strategies, which reveals the limitations of binary fairness metrics in the multi class setting.

arXiv (Cornell University)
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon
Rethinking Fairness Metrics for Multi-Class and Multi-Group Assessment: Not Everything is Binary — Marco Salvatore Nobile, Matteo Grazioso, et al. · arXiv (Cornell University) (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS