arXiv Releases Fairness Audit of Quantum Machine Learning for Medical Imaging: Performance vs. Fairness Trade-offs

Summary:A new arXiv study conducts a fairness audit of quantum machine learning (QML) classifiers for medical imaging tasks, including dermatological lesions and chest X-rays. The research reveals that while QML classifiers can achieve competitive aggregate performance, they still exhibit significant subgroup disparities. The study evaluates various mitigation strategies such as differentiable Equalized Odds (EO) regularization and Gradient Reversal Learning (GRL). It finds that these methods can reduce

---

Background and Motivation

Quantum Machine Learning (QML) has gained increasing attention for medical classification tasks. However, its behavior under subgroup-aware fairness criteria remains understudied. This research aims to conduct an empirical fairness audit of both classical and quantum classifiers for medical imaging, assessing their performance and fairness trade-offs.

Methodology

The study utilizes ResNet-18 embeddings and evaluates two datasets:

1. Dermatological Lesions Dataset (DDI): Sensitive attribute is the Fitzpatrick skin type.
2. Chest X-rays Dataset (CheXpert-derived): Sensitive attribute is the age group.

The researchers trained SVM, MLP, QSVM, and QCNN models under baseline and three mitigation settings:

• Differentiable Equalized Odds (EO) regularization
• Gradient Reversal Learning (GRL)
• Combination of EO and GRL

Additionally, two foundation models (PanDerm, EVA-X) were used as external references.

Key Findings

1. Performance vs. Fairness Trade-off: While quantum classifiers demonstrate competitive aggregate performance, they still exhibit significant subgroup disparities. For example, QSVM with GRL+EO performed best on the DDI dataset in terms of the performance/fairness trade-off, approaching PanDerm's level. On the other hand, QCNN with GRL achieved the highest aggregate performance on the CheXpert dataset but increased subgroup disparities.

2. Limitations of Mitigation Strategies: Some mitigation strategies, while reducing subgroup disparities, may degrade overall discrimination. For instance, the QCNN with GRL configuration on the DDI dataset, despite having the smallest disparity, was clinically unacceptable due to loss of global discrimination.

3. Model and Dataset Dependency: The fairness effects are highly dependent on the specific model and dataset. For example, QSVM performed well on the DDI dataset but was outperformed by QCNN on the CheXpert dataset.

Engineering Trade-offs and Recommendations

1. Cost of Fairness Improvements: Achieving fairness often comes at the cost of reduced global discrimination. Developers should set non-inferiority margins based on specific application requirements to ensure that fairness improvements do not overly compromise overall model performance.

2. Importance of Empirical Evaluation: Given the dependency of fairness effects on models and datasets, thorough empirical evaluation is crucial. Developers should select appropriate mitigation strategies based on evaluation results.

3. Gap between Simulation and Reality: All quantum models were run in classical simulation, and no quantum advantage was claimed. Future research should focus on the practical application of quantum hardware to assess QML's performance in real-world scenarios.

Conclusion

This study highlights the fairness challenges of QML in medical imaging classification and emphasizes the importance of subgroup-aware evaluation. The findings suggest that fairness improvement strategies need to be optimized for specific application scenarios to achieve the best balance between performance and fairness.

---

Source: ArXiv Machine Learning (cs.LG) (2026-10-30)

— END —

Tags: #Quantum Machine Learning Follow #Medical Imaging Follow #Fairness Audit Follow #Subgroup Disparities Follow #ResNet-18 Follow