# KAISEN: Reproducible Subgroup Fairness Auditing for Clinical Risk Models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.28608 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.28608/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 8 of its 49 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 30 Jul 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 8 of 8)

- [On Calibration of Modern Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.04599/) (2017)
- [Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1610.02413/) (2016)
- [Counterfactual Fairness](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1703.06856/) (2017)
- [Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1610.07524/) (2016)
- [Mitigating Unwanted Biases with Adversarial Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1801.07593/) (2018)
- [Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scores](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1609.05807/) (2016)
- [Measuring Calibration in Deep Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.01685/) (2019)
- [Hidden Stratification Causes Clinically Meaningful Failures in Machine Learning for Medical Imaging](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.12475/) (2019)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Clinical risk models routinely achieve strong aggregate performance while producing materially different error rates across patient subgroups. Audit pipelines have been proposed to catch this, but their components are rarely stress-tested, so it is unclear which parts of an audit can be trusted and under what conditions. We present KAISEN, a five-phase audit pipeline covering subgroup stratification, disparity measurement, mechanism diagnostics, post-hoc mitigation, and drift monitoring, evaluated to the point of failure on a synthetic benchmark of 16 disease tasks, 15 social-determinant axes from Healthy People 2030, and three prespecified intersections. Four findings follow. (i) Significance tracks each axis's gap against its own minimum detectable effect: rank correlation between significance count and raw equalized-odds difference (EOD) across the 15 axes is rho = 0.56, rising to rho = 0.78 once EOD is standardized by that floor. (ii) Per-group threshold optimization reduces EOD in 48 of 48 held-out runs (paired delta = -0.285, 95% CI [-0.313, -0.252]), while group-wise Platt scaling -- the better calibrator -- behaves as a coin flip on EOD (19 of 48 runs improved, 95% CI [0.26, 0.55]) with mean effect near zero, so what an audit should report is the variance, not the average. (iii) The mechanism diagnostic classifies 144 of 144 controlled cases correctly but recovers none of 48 model-driven cases under proxy misspecification, with no signal that it failed. (iv) CUSUM failures and false alarms track cohort realization far more than disease: at the reference threshold, all 27 false alarms and 7 of 8 missed shifts come from different seeds (chi-squared p = 0.002), so a threshold tuned on one cohort fails to transfer. All results are synthetic with known ground truth and do not establish clinical validity. Code, artifacts, and scripts reproducing every number are released.