TL;DR
The paper introduces GESD, a procedural fairness metric that assesses disparities in model explanation stability across groups, and integrates it into a multi-objective framework to improve fairness and utility.
Contribution
It proposes GESD, a novel explanation-based fairness metric, and a combined optimization framework FEU that enhances fairness and utility in machine learning models.
Findings
GESD effectively captures group-wise explanation disparities.
FEU improves both fairness and utility in benchmark datasets.
The approach bridges outcome-based and explanation-based fairness.
Abstract
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 \textit{procedural-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…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
