mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

A structured regression approach for evaluating model performance across intersectional subgroups

arXiv 2401.14893 ↗First posted 26 Jan 2024cs.LG cs.CY stat.APcited by 8

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Disaggregated evaluation is a central task in AI fairness assessment, where the goal is to measure an AI system's performance across different subgroups defined by combinations of demographic or other sensitive attributes. The standard approach is to stratify the evaluation data across subgroups and compute performance metrics separately for each group. However, even for moderately-sized evaluation datasets, sample sizes quickly get small once considering intersectional subgroups, which greatly limits the extent to which intersectional groups are included in analysis. In this work, we introduce a structured regression approach to disaggregated evaluation that we demonstrate can yield reliable system performance estimates even for very small subgroups. We provide corresponding inference strategies for constructing confidence intervals and explore how goodness-of-fit testing can yield insight into the structure of fairness-related harms experienced by intersectional groups. We evaluate our approach on two publicly available datasets, and several variants of semi-synthetic data. The results show that our method is considerably more accurate than the standard approach, especially for small subgroups, and demonstrate how goodness-of-fit testing helps identify the key factors that drive differences in performance.

Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 40 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Jan 2024.

Builds on

19 of 40 references.

References · 19

  1. 2017Preventing Fairness Gerrymandering: Auditing and Learning for Subgroup Fairnesscited by 381
  2. 2022Sociotechnical Harms of Algorithmic Systems: Scoping a Taxonomy for Harm Reductioncited by 137
  3. 2018An Intersectional Definition of Fairnesscited by 126
  4. 2013Discrimination in Online Ad Deliverycited by 93
  5. 2021Towards Measuring Fairness in AI: the Casual Conversations Datasetcited by 80
  6. 2013Confidence Intervals and Hypothesis Testing for High-Dimensional Regressioncited by 78
  7. 2023Fairlearn: Assessing and Improving Fairness of AI Systemscited by 74
  8. 2021Assessing the Fairness of AI Systems: AI Practitioners' Processes, Challenges, and Needs for Supportcited by 61
  9. 2022Towards Intersectionality in Machine Learning: Including More Identities, Handling Underrepresentation, and Performing Evaluationcited by 59
  10. 2021Designing Disaggregated Evaluations of AI Systems: Choices, Considerations, and Tradeoffscited by 48
  11. 2020Fairness Evaluation in Presence of Biased Noisy Labelscited by 38
  12. 2020Can I Trust My Fairness Metric? Assessing Fairness with Unlabeled Data and Bayesian Inferencecited by 31
7 more
  1. 2023Can You Rely on Your Model Evaluation? Improving Model Evaluation with Synthetic Test Datacited by 31
  2. 2018Bayesian Modeling of Intersectional Fairness: The Variance of Biascited by 23
  3. 2020Active Bayesian Assessment for Black-Box Classifierscited by 16
  4. 2022Bounding and Approximating Intersectional Fairness through Marginal Fairnesscited by 11
  5. 2019Goodness-of-fit testing in high-dimensional generalized linear modelscited by 8
  6. 2021Model-based metrics: Sample-efficient estimates of predictive model subpopulation performancecited by 6
  7. 2021Active Assessment of Prediction Services as Accuracy Surface Over Attribute Combinationscited by 5

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 2; 2025: 3; 2026: 3.

8 papers.