Intersectional Fairness via Mixed-Integer Optimization

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.19595v1
• Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2026 13:29:25 GMT
• Title: Intersectional Fairness via Mixed-Integer Optimization
• Authors: Jiří Němeček, Mark Kozdoba, Illia Kryvoviaz, Tomáš Pevný, Jakub Mareček,
• Abstract summary: We argue that true fairness requires addressing bias at the intersections of protected groups.<n>We propose a unified framework that leverages Mixed-Integer Optimization (MIO) to train intersectionally fair and intrinsically interpretable classifiers.
• Score: 2.664154603948153
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The deployment of Artificial Intelligence in high-risk domains, such as finance and healthcare, necessitates models that are both fair and transparent. While regulatory frameworks, including the EU's AI Act, mandate bias mitigation, they are deliberately vague about the definition of bias. In line with existing research, we argue that true fairness requires addressing bias at the intersections of protected groups. We propose a unified framework that leverages Mixed-Integer Optimization (MIO) to train intersectionally fair and intrinsically interpretable classifiers. We prove the equivalence of two measures of intersectional fairness (MSD and SPSF) in detecting the most unfair subgroup and empirically demonstrate that our MIO-based algorithm improves performance in finding bias. We train high-performing, interpretable classifiers that bound intersectional bias below an acceptable threshold, offering a robust solution for regulated industries and beyond.

Related papers

• FairRF: Multi-Objective Search for Single and Intersectional Software Fairness [6.155605380087007]
  We introduce FairRF, a novel approach based on multi-objective evolutionary search to optimise fairness and effectiveness in classification tasks.<n>We conduct an extensive empirical evaluation of FairRF against 26 different baselines in 11 different scenarios using five effectiveness and three fairness metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-12T13:42:45Z)
• Fairness-Aware Reinforcement Learning (FAReL): A Framework for Transparent and Balanced Sequential Decision-Making [41.53741129864172]
  Equity in real-world sequential decision problems can be enforced using fairness-aware methods.<n>We propose a framework where multiple trade-offs can be explored.<n>We show that our framework learns policies that are more fair across multiple scenarios, with only minor loss in performance reward.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-26T11:42:14Z)
• The Root Shapes the Fruit: On the Persistence of Gender-Exclusive Harms in Aligned Language Models [91.86718720024825]
  We center transgender, nonbinary, and other gender-diverse identities to investigate how alignment procedures interact with pre-existing gender-diverse bias.<n>Our findings reveal that DPO-aligned models are particularly sensitive to supervised finetuning.<n>We conclude with recommendations tailored to DPO and broader alignment practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-06T06:50:50Z)
• Finite-Sample and Distribution-Free Fair Classification: Optimal Trade-off Between Excess Risk and Fairness, and the Cost of Group-Blindness [14.421493372559762]
  We quantify the impact of enforcing algorithmic fairness and group-blindness in binary classification under group fairness constraints. We propose a unified framework for fair classification that provides distribution-free and finite-sample fairness guarantees with controlled excess risk.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T20:04:17Z)
• Identifying and Mitigating Social Bias Knowledge in Language Models [52.52955281662332]
  We propose a novel debiasing approach, Fairness Stamp (FAST), which enables fine-grained calibration of individual social biases.<n>FAST surpasses state-of-the-art baselines with superior debiasing performance.<n>This highlights the potential of fine-grained debiasing strategies to achieve fairness in large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-07T17:14:58Z)
• DualFair: Fair Representation Learning at Both Group and Individual Levels via Contrastive Self-supervision [73.80009454050858]
  This work presents a self-supervised model, called DualFair, that can debias sensitive attributes like gender and race from learned representations. Our model jointly optimize for two fairness criteria - group fairness and counterfactual fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-15T07:13:54Z)
• Fair Enough: Standardizing Evaluation and Model Selection for Fairness Research in NLP [64.45845091719002]
  Modern NLP systems exhibit a range of biases, which a growing literature on model debiasing attempts to correct. This paper seeks to clarify the current situation and plot a course for meaningful progress in fair learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-11T14:54:00Z)
• Beyond Incompatibility: Trade-offs between Mutually Exclusive Fairness Criteria in Machine Learning and Law [2.959308758321417]
  We present a novel algorithm (FAir Interpolation Method: FAIM) for continuously interpolating between three fairness criteria.<n>We demonstrate the effectiveness of our algorithm when applied to synthetic data, the COMPAS data set, and a new, real-world data set from the e-commerce sector.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-01T12:47:54Z)
• How Robust is Your Fairness? Evaluating and Sustaining Fairness under Unseen Distribution Shifts [107.72786199113183]
  We propose a novel fairness learning method termed CUrvature MAtching (CUMA) CUMA achieves robust fairness generalizable to unseen domains with unknown distributional shifts. We evaluate our method on three popular fairness datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-04T02:37:50Z)
• Domain Adaptation meets Individual Fairness. And they get along [48.95808607591299]
  We show that algorithmic fairness interventions can help machine learning models overcome distribution shifts. In particular, we show that enforcing suitable notions of individual fairness (IF) can improve the out-of-distribution accuracy of ML models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-01T16:19:55Z)
• Characterizing Intersectional Group Fairness with Worst-Case Comparisons [0.0]
  We discuss why fairness metrics need to be looked at under the lens of intersectionality. We suggest a simple worst case comparison method to expand the definitions of existing group fairness metrics. We conclude with the social, legal and political framework to handle intersectional fairness in the modern context.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-05T17:44:33Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.