Bias Detection via Maximum Subgroup Discrepancy
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Bias evaluation is fundamental to trustworthy AI, both in terms of checking data quality and in terms of checking the outputs of AI systems. In testing data quality, for example, one may study the distance of a given dataset, viewed as a distribution, to a given ground-truth reference dataset. However, classical metrics, such as the Total Variation and the Wasserstein distances, are known to have high sample complexities and, therefore, may fail to provide a meaningful distinction in many practical scenarios. In this paper, we propose a new notion of distance, the Maximum Subgroup Discrepancy (MSD). In this metric, two distributions are close if, roughly, discrepancies are low for all feature subgroups. While the number of subgroups may be exponential, we show that the sample complexity is linear in the number of features, thus making it feasible for practical applications. Moreover, we provide a practical algorithm for evaluating the distance based on Mixed-integer optimization (MIO). We also note that the proposed distance is easily interpretable, thus providing clearer paths to fixing the biases once they have been identified. Finally, we describe a natural general bias detection framework, termed MSDD distances, and show that MSD aligns well with this framework. We empirically evaluate MSD by comparing it with other metrics and by demonstrating the above properties of MSD on real-world datasets.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 68 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 Feb 2025.
Builds on
24 of 68 references.
References · 24
- 2021Retiring Adult: New Datasets for Fair Machine Learningcited by 443
- 2017Preventing Fairness Gerrymandering: Auditing and Learning for Subgroup Fairnesscited by 381
- 2018Statistical Aspects of Wasserstein Distancescited by 202
- 2019Learning De-biased Representations with Biased Representationscited by 199
- 2019One Explanation Does Not Fit All: A Toolkit and Taxonomy of AI Explainability Techniquescited by 164
- 2018An Intersectional Definition of Fairnesscited by 126
- 2018An Empirical Study of Rich Subgroup Fairness for Machine Learningcited by 81
- 2018Boolean Decision Rules via Column Generationcited by 79
- 2023A Survey on Intersectional Fairness in Machine Learning: Notions, Mitigation, and Challengescited by 41
- 2013Optimal Algorithms for Testing Closeness of Discrete Distributionscited by 37
- 2019Generalized Linear Rule Modelscited by 34
- 2014Complexity theoretic limitations on learning DNF'scited by 21
12 more
- 2022Mitigating Dataset Bias by Using Per-sample Gradientcited by 21
- 2022Amortized Projection Optimization for Sliced Wasserstein Generative Modelscited by 17
- 2016Identifying Significant Predictive Bias in Classifierscited by 15
- 2015Learning Optimized Or's of And'scited by 13
- 2022On Approximating Total Variation Distancecited by 13
- 2023Sample Complexity of Probability Divergences under Group Symmetrycited by 13
- 2021Interpretable and Fair Boolean Rule Sets via Column Generationcited by 10
- 2022Progress in Mathematical Programming Solvers from 2001 to 2020cited by 10
- 2022A simple polynomial-time approximation algorithm for the total variation distance between two product distributionscited by 8
- 2022Learning and Testing Latent-Tree Ising Models Efficientlycited by 7
- 2023Computability of Optimizerscited by 5
- 2023Interpretable Differencing of Machine Learning Modelscited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 1.
2 papers.