Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

A structured regression approach for evaluating model performance across intersectional subgroups

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2401.14893 v2 pith:EDAYGOYN submitted 2024-01-26 cs.LG cs.CYstat.APstat.ML

classification cs.LGcs.CYstat.APstat.ML
keywords subgroupsapproachperformanceevaluationintersectionalacrosssmalldata
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Disaggregated evaluation is a central task in AI fairness assessment, where the goal is to measure an AI system's performance across different subgroups defined by combinations of demographic or other sensitive attributes. The standard approach is to stratify the evaluation data across subgroups and compute performance metrics separately for each group. However, even for moderately-sized evaluation datasets, sample sizes quickly get small once considering intersectional subgroups, which greatly limits the extent to which intersectional groups are included in analysis. In this work, we introduce a structured regression approach to disaggregated evaluation that we demonstrate can yield reliable system performance estimates even for very small subgroups. We provide corresponding inference strategies for constructing confidence intervals and explore how goodness-of-fit testing can yield insight into the structure of fairness-related harms experienced by intersectional groups. We evaluate our approach on two publicly available datasets, and several variants of semi-synthetic data. The results show that our method is considerably more accurate than the standard approach, especially for small subgroups, and demonstrate how goodness-of-fit testing helps identify the key factors that drive differences in performance.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Critical Appraisal of Fairness Metrics in Clinical Predictive AI

    cs.LG 2025-06 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

    A scoping review of 62 fairness metrics for clinical predictive AI finds a fragmented, threshold-dependent landscape with only one clinical utility metric.

Pith tools