Interpretable and Fair Mechanisms for Abstaining Classifiers
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Abstaining classifiers have the option to refrain from providing a prediction for instances that are difficult to classify. The abstention mechanism is designed to trade off the classifier's performance on the accepted data while ensuring a minimum number of predictions. In this setting, often fairness concerns arise when the abstention mechanism solely reduces errors for the majority groups of the data, resulting in increased performance differences across demographic groups. While there exist a bunch of methods that aim to reduce discrimination when abstaining, there is no mechanism that can do so in an explainable way. In this paper, we fill this gap by introducing Interpretable and Fair Abstaining Classifier IFAC, an algorithm that can reject predictions both based on their uncertainty and their unfairness. By rejecting possibly unfair predictions, our method reduces error and positive decision rate differences across demographic groups of the non-rejected data. Since the unfairness-based rejections are based on an interpretable-by-design method, i.e., rule-based fairness checks and situation testing, we create a transparent process that can empower human decision-makers to review the unfair predictions and make more just decisions for them. This explainable aspect is especially important in light of recent AI regulations, mandating that any high-risk decision task should be overseen by human experts to reduce discrimination risks.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 52 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Mar 2025.
Builds on
20 of 52 references.
References · 20
- 2017Selective Classification for Deep Neural Networkscited by 852
- 2019SelectiveNet: A Deep Neural Network with an Integrated Reject Optioncited by 350
- 2018An Intersectional Definition of Fairnesscited by 127
- 2020Self-Adaptive Training: beyond Empirical Risk Minimizationcited by 126
- 2021Machine Learning with a Reject Option: A surveycited by 109
- 2019FairVis: Visual Analytics for Discovering Intersectional Bias in Machine Learningcited by 93
- 2020Why Fairness Cannot Be Automated: Bridging the Gap Between EU Non-Discrimination Law and AIcited by 81
- 2021Optimal strategies for reject option classifierscited by 61
- 2022Towards Intersectionality in Machine Learning: Including More Identities, Handling Underrepresentation, and Performing Evaluationcited by 59
- 2023Who Audits the Auditors? Recommendations from a field scan of the algorithmic auditing ecosystemcited by 52
- 2020Selective Classification via One-Sided Predictioncited by 38
- 2020Selective Classification Can Magnify Disparities Across Groupscited by 36
8 more
- 2021Selective Regression Under Fairness Criteriacited by 34
- 2021Classification with abstention but without disparitiescited by 28
- 2022AUC-based Selective Classificationcited by 13
- 2024Deep Neural Network Benchmarks for Selective Classificationcited by 12
- 2022"Even if ..." -- Diverse Semifactual Explanations of Rejectcited by 11
- 2023Unsupervised Anomaly Detection with Rejectioncited by 9
- 2022Explaining Reject Options of Learning Vector Quantization Classifierscited by 7
- 2023WCLD: Curated Large Dataset of Criminal Cases from Wisconsin Circuit Courtscited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 1.
2 papers.