MESD: A Risk-Sensitive Metric for Explanation Fairness Across Intersectional Subgroups

TL;DR

This paper introduces MESD, a new fairness metric that assesses explanation disparities across intersectional groups, addressing limitations of outcome-based fairness metrics.

Contribution

The paper proposes MESD, a novel procedural fairness metric that captures explanation disparities across intersectional subgroups, and integrates it into a multi-objective optimization framework.

Findings

MESD reveals procedural disparities invisible to outcome metrics.

The UEF framework effectively balances utility, outcome fairness, and procedural fairness.

Experiments on benchmark datasets demonstrate MESD's effectiveness.

Abstract

Fairness in machine learning is predominantly evaluated through outcome-oriented metrics, such as Demographic parity, which measure whether predictions are statistically consistent across protected groups. However, these metrics cannot detect whether a model uses systematically different reasoning for different demographic groups, which violates procedural fairness principles. This problem is compounded by intersectionality, where models may appear fair on individual attributes (e.g., race) while exhibiting significant disparities for intersectional subgroups (e.g., race $\times$ gender), a phenomenon known as fairness gerrymandering. In this work, we introduce Multi-category Explanation Stability Disparity (MESD), a procedural fairness metric that quantifies disparities in explanation quality across intersectional subgroups formed by the Cartesian product of multiple protected attributes. MESD integrates three components, which are label-aware aggregation aligned with outcome-conditional fairness, empirical-Bayes shrinkage to stabilize estimates for small intersectional groups, and Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) weighting to emphasize worst-case subgroup disparities. We integrate MESD within a multi-objective optimization framework (UEF) that jointly optimizes utility, outcome fairness, and procedural fairness using NSGA-II. We evaluated MESD and UEF on three benchmark datasets along with four state-of-the-art methods in several experiments, and we demonstrate that MESD reveals procedural disparities invisible to outcome metrics alone. We position our contribution within procedural justice theory and discuss implications for regulatory compliance and intersectional equity.