Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Fairness Hub Technical Briefs: AUC Gap

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 2309.12371 v2 pith:TOIM6VEF submitted 2023-09-20 cs.LG cs.CY

Fairness Hub Technical Briefs: AUC Gap

classification cs.LG cs.CY
keywords teamsbiascommondifferentfairnessgoalmeasuremodel
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

To measure bias, we encourage teams to consider using AUC Gap: the absolute difference between the highest and lowest test AUC for subgroups (e.g., gender, race, SES, prior knowledge). It is agnostic to the AI/ML algorithm used and it captures the disparity in model performance for any number of subgroups, which enables non-binary fairness assessments such as for intersectional identity groups. The teams use a wide range of AI/ML models in pursuit of a common goal of doubling math achievement in low-income middle schools. Ensuring that the models, which are trained on datasets collected in many different contexts, do not introduce or amplify biases is important for achieving the goal. We offer here a versatile and easy-to-compute measure of model bias for all the teams in order to create a common benchmark and an analytical basis for sharing what strategies have worked for different teams.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.