GESD: Beyond Outcome-Oriented Fairness
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Machine learning (ML) algorithms are increasingly deployed in high-stakes decision-making domains such as loan approvals, hiring, and recidivism predictions. While existing fairness metrics (e.g., statistical parity, equal opportunity) effectively quantify outcome-oriented disparities, they offer limited insight into the procedure or explanation behind biased decisions. To address this gap, we propose Group-level Explanation Stability Disparity (GESD), a textitprocedural-oriented fairness metric that measures disparities in the stability, robustness, and sensitivity of model explanations across different subgroups in a protected category. %GESD is explainer-agnostic, model-agnostic, and extends the scope of fairness analyses to the level of explainability. We further integrate GESD into a multi-objective optimization framework that jointly optimizes for utility, outcome-based fairness, and explanation-based fairness called FEU (Fairness--Explainability--Utility). Empirical results on multiple benchmark datasets show that GESD effectively captures group-wise discrepancies in explanation quality, and that FEU improves both utility and fairness over state-of-the-art methods. By bridging outcome-based and explanation-based fairness, GESD offers a comprehensive tool for diagnosing and mitigating bias in predictive modeling. Our code and datasets are available on GitHub hyperlinkhttps://github.com/horlahsunbo/GESDhttps://github.com/horlahsunbo/GESD
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 30 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 May 2026.
Builds on
17 of 30 references.
References · 17
- 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,007
- 2016The Mythos of Model Interpretabilitycited by 721
- 2016Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instrumentscited by 672
- 2018Mitigating Unwanted Biases with Adversarial Learningcited by 663
- 2018A Reductions Approach to Fair Classificationcited by 587
- 2018Towards Robust Interpretability with Self-Explaining Neural Networkscited by 505
- 2017Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairnesscited by 403
- 2017Methods for Interpreting and Understanding Deep Neural Networkscited by 345
- 2018On the Robustness of Interpretability Methodscited by 314
- 2020Evaluating and Aggregating Feature-based Model Explanationscited by 188
- 2020Reliable Post hoc Explanations: Modeling Uncertainty in Explainabilitycited by 125
- 2022Fairness via Explanation Quality: Evaluating Disparities in the Quality of Post hoc Explanationscited by 40
5 more
- 2020The Fairness-Accuracy Pareto Frontcited by 26
- 2022Marrying Fairness and Explainability in Supervised Learningcited by 23
- 2022What Makes a Good Explanation?: A Harmonized View of Properties of Explanationscited by 22
- 2022Fairness and Explainability: Bridging the Gap Towards Fair Model Explanationscited by 22
- 2022Fair Feature Subset Selection using Multiobjective Genetic Algorithmcited by 4
Built on by
Not cited yet.