FairSelect: A Systematic Evaluation of Multi-Level and Intersectional Algorithmic Fairness

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.08953v1
• Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2026 21:27:29 GMT
• Title: FairSelect: A Systematic Evaluation of Multi-Level and Intersectional Algorithmic Fairness
• Abstract summary: Algorithmic fairness methods are increasingly used to identify and mitigate bias in machine learning models.<n>This work presents FairSelect, a toolkit for evaluating fairness mitigation strategies applied individually and in combination.
• Score: 0.5295211483828045
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Algorithmic fairness methods are increasingly used to identify and mitigate bias in machine learning models, yet most approaches are evaluated in isolation and along single demographic axes. This limits practical guidance for selecting fairness strategies, where disparities may arise across intersectional subgroups and across multiple stages of the modeling lifecycle. This work presents FairSelect, a toolkit for systematically evaluating fairness mitigation strategies applied individually and in combination across preprocessing, inprocessing, and postprocessing stages. FairSelect supports multiple model architectures, intersectional subgroup evaluation, and comparison of fairness utility tradeoffs across baseline, single method, and multi level configurations. The framework was validated using synthetic clinical datasets designed to represent specific bias mechanisms and a real-world replication of two-year stroke risk prediction among patients with atrial fibrillation. Synthetic experiments showed that targeted fairness methods generally reduced intended subgroup disparities, while combined strategies produced larger average fairness improvements with modest utility tradeoffs. In the clinical prediction task, mitigation effects were highly variable, with some combinations improving both fairness and predictive performance while others were ineffective or counterproductive. These findings demonstrate that fairness interventions interact in nonadditive and context dependent ways. FairSelect provides a practical framework for systematically identifying fairness strategies that improve subgroup equity while preserving model performance in clinical machine learning.

Related papers

• Demystifying the Optimal Fair Classifier in Multi-Class Classification [21.824603447220454]
  We investigate two challenges in fair classification: (i) characterizing the optimal accuracy-fairness frontier in multi-class settings, and (ii) designing practical algorithms that attain this optimum in different training phases.<n>We propose two attribute-blind algorithms to enforce fairness requirements in practice: an in-processing approach for fairness intervention during training via the reduction approach, and a post-processing approach for fine-tuning output probabilities with plug-in estimation. Experiments conducted on multiple datasets demonstrate the superior performance of our methods in balancing accuracy and fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-30T10:00:52Z)
• A structured regression approach for evaluating model performance across intersectional subgroups [53.91682617836498]
  Disaggregated evaluation is a central task in AI fairness assessment, where the goal is to measure an AI system's performance across different subgroups. We introduce a structured regression approach to disaggregated evaluation that we demonstrate can yield reliable system performance estimates even for very small subgroups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-26T14:21:45Z)
• Towards A Scalable Solution for Improving Multi-Group Fairness in Compositional Classification [16.184530881074654]
  We show that natural baseline approaches for improving equal opportunity fairness scale linearly with the product of the number of remediated groups and the number of remediated prediction labels, rendering them impractical. We then introduce two simple techniques, called em task-overconditioning and em group-interleaving, to achieve a constant scaling in this multi-group multi-label setup. Our experimental results in academic and real-world environments demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposal at mitigation within this environment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-11T18:55:27Z)
• An Operational Perspective to Fairness Interventions: Where and How to Intervene [9.833760837977222]
  We present a holistic framework for evaluating and contextualizing fairness interventions. We demonstrate our framework with a case study on predictive parity. We find predictive parity is difficult to achieve without using group data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-03T07:04:33Z)
• Contrastive Learning for Fair Representations [50.95604482330149]
  Trained classification models can unintentionally lead to biased representations and predictions. Existing debiasing methods for classification models, such as adversarial training, are often expensive to train and difficult to optimise. We propose a method for mitigating bias by incorporating contrastive learning, in which instances sharing the same class label are encouraged to have similar representations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-22T10:47:51Z)
• MultiFair: Multi-Group Fairness in Machine Learning [52.24956510371455]
  We study multi-group fairness in machine learning (MultiFair) We propose a generic end-to-end algorithmic framework to solve it. Our proposed framework is generalizable to many different settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-24T02:30:22Z)
• Characterizing Fairness Over the Set of Good Models Under Selective Labels [69.64662540443162]
  We develop a framework for characterizing predictive fairness properties over the set of models that deliver similar overall performance. We provide tractable algorithms to compute the range of attainable group-level predictive disparities. We extend our framework to address the empirically relevant challenge of selectively labelled data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-02T02:11:37Z)
• Beyond Individual and Group Fairness [90.4666341812857]
  We present a new data-driven model of fairness that is guided by the unfairness complaints received by the system. Our model supports multiple fairness criteria and takes into account their potential incompatibilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-21T14:14:44Z)
• Towards Model-Agnostic Post-Hoc Adjustment for Balancing Ranking Fairness and Algorithm Utility [54.179859639868646]
  Bipartite ranking aims to learn a scoring function that ranks positive individuals higher than negative ones from labeled data. There have been rising concerns on whether the learned scoring function can cause systematic disparity across different protected groups. We propose a model post-processing framework for balancing them in the bipartite ranking scenario.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-15T10:08:39Z)

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.