Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · November 2, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
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.