Papers › The Disparate Benefits of Deep Ensembles

The Disparate Benefits of Deep Ensembles

17 Oct 2024arXiv:2410.13831archive 2025-07-28

Kajetan Schweighofer, Adrian Arnaiz-Rodriguez, Sepp Hochreiter, Nuria Oliver

Ensembles of Deep Neural Networks, Deep Ensembles, are widely used as a simple way to boost predictive performance. However, their impact on algorithmic fairness is not well understood yet. Algorithmic fairness investigates how a model's performance varies across different groups, typically defined by protected attributes such as age, gender, or race. In this work, we investigate the interplay between the performance gains from Deep Ensembles and fairness. Our analysis reveals that they unevenly favor different groups in what we refer to as a disparate benefits effect. We empirically investigate this effect with Deep Ensembles applied to popular facial analysis and medical imaging datasets, where protected group attributes are given and find that it occurs for multiple established group fairness metrics, including statistical parity and equal opportunity. Furthermore, we identify the per-group difference in predictive diversity of ensemble members as the potential cause of the disparate benefits effect. Finally, we evaluate different approaches to reduce unfairness due to the disparate benefits effect. Our findings show that post-processing is an effective method to mitigate this unfairness while preserving the improved performance of Deep Ensembles.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

6 samples harvested; 5 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 1 has no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-25; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 0 of the 6 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from ml-jku/disparate-benefits. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections