Intersectional Divergence: Measuring Fairness in Regression

Joe Germino; Nitesh V. Chawla; Nuno Moniz

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 52 references

Intersectional Divergence: Measuring Fairness in Regression

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Single-attribute fairness audits miss regression bias; Intersectional Divergence measures every protected group at every relevance level, with a provably convergent loss version.

desk verdict A genuinely useful fairness measure for regression, undermined by a convergence proof that is incorrect as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.00830 v2 pith:XY4E22JD submitted 2025-05-01 cs.LG

Joe Germino , Nuno Moniz , Nitesh V. Chawla This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LG

keywords fairnessintersectionalityregressionimbalanceddomainsrelevancefunctionfairlossSERAprotectedattributes

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that fairness in regression cannot be trusted when measured as an average error over a single protected attribute: real bias hides at the intersection of several protected attributes, and inside target ranges the user cares about most. It proposes Intersectional Divergence (ID) as the first regression fairness measure that combines the intersectionality of protected attributes with importance weighting over the target range: the integral, over relevance thresholds, of the gap between the normalized squared-error curves of the best- and worst-predicted intersectional subgroups. The paper further claims that the same construction converts into a loss, IDLoss, that is non-convex yet provably converges to stationary points via the Łojasiewicz inequality, and it demonstrates on four datasets that a dual-boosting learner trained with IDLoss and SERA (IDBoost) improves intersectional fairness measures while keeping predictive performance competitive. If these claims hold, an auditor gains a two-dimensional picture of model unfairness — which subgroup suffers, and at which prediction values — that single-attribute average-error metrics cannot show, plus a training objective that directly targets that unfairness.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the relevance-weighted error curve of each intersectional subgroup: for a combination $\alpha$ of protected-attribute values, $SER^\alpha_t / |D^\alpha_t|$ is the mean squared error over cases in that subgroup whose target relevance $\phi(y) \geq t$. ID is the integral over $t \in [0,1]$ of the difference between the maximum and minimum of these curves, so it measures the largest error gap between any two protected groups at whatever target range matters; the ideal score is 0. The relevance function $\phi: Y \to [0,1]$ — supplied by a domain expert or interpolated from boxplot statistics, with extremes weighted 1 and the median near 0 — imports domain preferences into the measure, and is also the input that makes ID adjustable to different application stakes. IDLoss is the same integral with the current best subgroup $\alpha_{\min}$ excluded from the sum, which lowers every group's error toward the best group; its non-convexity comes from $\alpha_{\min}$ switching during optimization, and the convergence argument applies the Łojasiewicz inequality region by region, exploiting the finite number of possible $\alpha_{\min}$ identities. The experimental engine is IDBoost, which averages two boosted ensembles — one weighted by IDLoss and one by SERA — with a user-chosen performance/fairness weight.

What would settle it

Two concrete tests. First, recompute ID and rerun the IDBoost comparison on the same four datasets under two or more defensible relevance functions — the default boxplot interpolation, a wider or narrower whisker rule, and an expert-supplied weighting — and check whether the ranking of models by ID, and the fairness improvements claimed for IDBoost0.5, survive; if the 'fairest model' verdict flips, ID is measuring the chosen weighting, not the model. Second, build a dataset with two protected groups whose normalized squared errors are exactly tied across a range of relevance thresholds, making $\alpha_{\min}$ non-unique, and run gradient descent on IDLoss in that tie regime; if it fails to converge or cycles between regions, the finite-region-transition argument behind the convergence guarantee breaks at its boundary case.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated the way the authors would put it, is that regression fairness is a two-dimensional quantity: it varies across the subgroups formed by every combination of protected attributes, and it varies across how relevant the predicted target value is to the user. ID formalizes this as the area between the highest and lowest normalized squared-error curves ($SER^\alpha_t/|D^\alpha_t|$) taken over all relevance thresholds $t$, so the score reports the worst gap between any two protected groups at any target range. The same construction yields IDLoss: instead of measuring the gap, optimize by summing every subgroup's error curve except the current best one, pulling the underperforming groups up toward the best rather than dragging the best group down. The paper's theoretical analysis claims that although $\alpha_{\min}$ can switch during training, making the loss non-convex, IDLoss satisfies the Łojasiewicz inequality within each region of constant $\alpha_{\min}$, the regions are finite, and gradient descent therefore converges to a stationary point with piecewise Lipschitz gradients. Empirically, ID surfaces biases invisible to single-attribute measures — in COMPAS the race disparity is near zero overall but large within each sex — and the authors report that IDBoost0.5 achieves the best average ranks among the fair-regression baselines compared on both ID and $\Delta BGL$ while staying competitive in SERA.

Load-bearing premise

Everything ID reports is relative to the relevance function $\phi(Y)$ that decides which target values matter, and the paper gives no sensitivity analysis over it: if a defensible alternative choice of $\phi$ (a different boxplot rule, or an expert weighting) changes which model is judged fairest, then ID's verdict is an artifact of that weighting rather than a property of the model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Auditors can score any regression model with binary protected attributes by ID and read off, from a single curve, which intersectional subgroup is worst-predicted and at which relevance levels — information single-attribute MAE comparisons cannot provide.
Any algorithm with a differentiable loss can incorporate IDLoss, and the paper's convergence proof means fairness-aware training does not require ad-hoc constraint tuning or convexity assumptions.
The reported experiments imply that single-attribute fairness audits can both hide large bias (NLSY: race disparity 48.6% among men versus 3.3% among women) and misread overall near-zero disparity as fairness (COMPAS: 1.0% overall, but +13.9% for women and −1.4% for men).
Across the four datasets, IDBoost0.5 ranks best among the fairness-aware baselines on both ID and $\Delta BGL$ while remaining competitive on SERA, supporting the paper's claim that intersectional, relevance-aware fairness does not require sacrificing predictive performance.
Because ID normalizes per subgroup, it remains defined when intersectional groups have very unequal sizes; the authors note the exponential runtime growth in the number of protected attributes and report a curve-simplification procedure that cuts training time by over 30% with little change in SERA or ID.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Beyond the paper: the same area-between-curves construction could be applied to classification by swapping squared error for 0/1 or log loss, yielding an intersectional divergence that also handles class imbalance — a direction the paper does not pursue.
Beyond the paper: because ID reports a worst-case gap rather than an average over groups, it is sensitive to noise in the smallest subgroup; a bootstrap confidence band around the ID curve would tell auditors whether a reported divergence is real or sampling artifact.
Beyond the paper: ID's max-versus-min structure is a worst-case measure, so it naturally extends to a fairness budget — train with a constraint that the ID gap stay below a user-chosen threshold, turning the audit measure into a tunable fairness specification rather than a fixed objective weight.
Beyond the paper: a practical deployment recipe suggested by the construction is to audit each model under several relevance functions and report all verdicts — if the fairness ranking changes across them, the disagreement itself reveals how preference-dependent the model's fairness is.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

Here's the read on 2505.00830. The paper does one genuinely useful thing: it defines Intersectional Divergence (ID), a fairness measure for regression that combines SERA's relevance weighting with a max-min comparison across intersectional groups. That's a real gap, and the construction is simple enough to be usable. The IDLoss adaptation is also reasonable as a heuristic: exclude the current best group from the loss and push everyone else down. The empirical sections show the measure surfaces bias that MAE and BGL miss, and the IDBoost results are suggestive.

Where it falls down is the theory. The abstract and conclusion claim IDLoss "satisfies convergence guarantees" via a Łojasiewicz analysis. Appendix A does not establish that. Proposition A.3's attempted non-convexity example actually satisfies convexity: they show IDLoss(0.5 yA + 0.5 yB) = 0 < 0.05 = 0.5 IDLoss(yA) + 0.5 IDLoss(yB), which is exactly the convexity inequality. So the paper's own demonstration inverts the definition. More seriously, Theorem A.5's Step 4 asserts each region-boundary crossing reduces the loss by at least δ > 0. That's unsupported, and a simple two-group example (errors tied at 25, then one group's error rises to 26.01, switching the argmin) shows the loss can increase at a crossing. Definition A.2 also partitions the space by requiring the same argmin for all t in [0,1], so trajectories where the best group varies with t aren't covered. The "finite crossings" argument needs a uniform δ that is never established. Either the theorem needs a correct proof (the piecewise-quadratic structure suggests a Kurdyka-Łojasiewicz argument might work) or the claim should be scaled back to "empirically effective loss with piecewise smooth structure."

Other soft spots: the Agarwal baseline is selected on the test set, which is a methodological error, though it favors the baseline, so the main qualitative results survive. Results are mostly average ranks; Appendix B has raw values, but the magnitude of fairness gains is hard to eyeball. And the whole approach leans on the user-supplied relevance function φ; no sensitivity analysis, so we don't know how robust the conclusions are to that choice.

Bottom line: the measure is a legitimate contribution to fair regression, and the paper deserves a serious referee. But the convergence guarantee as written is not proven, and the experimental protocol needs cleanup. I'd recommend major revision.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes Intersectional Divergence (ID), a new fairness measure for regression tasks that combines the SERA relevance-weighting framework with intersectional protected-attribute groups. ID is defined as the integrated, normalized difference between the best- and worst-performing intersectional groups across relevance thresholds. The paper also defines IDLoss, a surrogate loss for training, and claims that IDLoss is non-convex yet satisfies Lojasiewicz-based convergence guarantees and has piecewise Lipschitz continuous gradients. Experiments on four datasets compare an IDLoss-based boosting method (IDBoost) against several fairness-agnostic and fairness-aware baselines on MSE, SERA, BGL, statistical parity, and ID. The paper argues that ID reveals biases hidden by single-attribute average-error measures and that IDBoost improves fairness while retaining competitive predictive performance.

Significance. If the measure and its optimization are sound, ID addresses a genuine gap: no existing regression fairness measure combines intersectional protected attributes with domain-imbalance weighting. The paper has several concrete strengths: it builds on the externally validated SERA framework rather than inventing a relevance model from scratch; it provides visualizations and a reproducible implementation; and the experimental study spans four datasets with multiple protected attributes. The basic ID construction is intuitive and could be useful for auditing regression models. However, the advertised theoretical contributions are currently not established: the non-convexity proof is mathematically inverted, and the convergence proof contains a false step about region-boundary crossings. Because the abstract and conclusion explicitly promise 'convergence guarantees' and 'the first rigorous analysis of convergence properties for intersectional fairness optimization in regression,' these flaws are load-bearing. The empirical results are suggestive but would need to be paired with either a corrected theory or a substantially weakened set of claims.

major comments (5)

[Section 4, Eqs. (5)-(6)] The definition of ID is internally inconsistent: in Eq. (5), alpha_min is defined as argmin over alpha of SER_t^alpha / |D_alpha|, but Eq. (6) evaluates the ID integrand with SER_t^{alpha_min} / |D_t^{alpha_min}|. The denominator in the argmin does not match the denominator in the integral. If the intended normalization is by group size |D_alpha|, then Eq. (6) should divide by |D_alpha_min|, not |D_t^{alpha_min}|; if the intended normalization is by the threshold-dependent set |D_t^alpha|, then Eq. (5) should use |D_t^alpha|. This is not a cosmetic point: every reported ID value depends on which normalization is used, and the current text cannot be used to reproduce the numbers.
[Appendix A.2, Proposition A.3] The proof of non-convexity is directionally wrong. The displayed computation shows IDLoss(0.5 y_A + 0.5 y_B) = 0 < 0.05 = 0.5 IDLoss(y_A) + 0.5 IDLoss(y_B), which is exactly the convexity inequality f(lambda x + (1-lambda) y) <= lambda f(x) + (1-lambda) f(y) for lambda = 0.5. The text calls this a violation, inverting the definition of convexity. Moreover, for two protected groups IDLoss = e_1 + e_2 - min(e_1, e_2) = max(e_1, e_2), the pointwise maximum of two convex squared-error terms, which is convex. Thus the claimed non-convexity is not demonstrated, and the motivation for the Lojasiewicz analysis in Section 4.2 and the conclusion is unsupported.
[Appendix A.3, Theorem A.5, Step 4] The assertion that 'each region boundary crossing reduces IDLoss by at least delta > 0' is false. Consider two groups with target values y = (0, 10) and predictions yhat = (5, 5): both groups have squared error 25, and IDLoss = 25 regardless of which group is excluded. If yhat_2 is changed to 4.9, group 1 becomes the unique minimum, so alpha_min switches to group 1; IDLoss becomes the error of group 2, which is 26.01, an increase over 25. The crossing increased the loss rather than decreasing it. Consequently, the 'finite region crossings' argument in Step 4 does not hold, and the proof does not establish convergence to a stationary point.
[Appendix A.3, Definition A.2 and Theorem A.5, Step 5] The convergence argument also conflates a finite set of possible alpha_min values with a finite number of region transitions along a trajectory. A gradient-descent trajectory could in principle switch alpha_min many times, possibly infinitely often, if the loss does not decrease monotonically at each crossing (which, as shown by the counterexample in the previous comment, it need not). Definition A.2 additionally requires the argmin to be constant for all t in [0,1] simultaneously, but for a fixed prediction vector alpha_min(t) can vary with the relevance threshold; the proof does not analyze trajectories where the minimizing group changes at different t values at different times. A separate, correct finiteness or monotonicity argument is needed.
[Section 5.4, Table 3] The text states that IDBoost0.5 'is better than all XGB models in both fairness measures,' but Table 3 shows that XGB_Huber has a better average Statistical Parity rank (4.78) than IDBoost0.5 (6.26). IDBoost0.5 is better than all XGB models on the ID rank and on Delta BGL, but not on SP. The claim as written is contradicted by the paper's own table. In addition, the Agarwal baselines are selected per metric on the test set, an optimistic protocol that should be disclosed in the comparison and may inflate the relative standing of the proposed method.

minor comments (4)

[Equations (6)-(7) and (12)-(13)] The notation in the manuscript is often unclear: Eq. (7) repeats Eq. (6) with a misrendered summation symbol, Eq. (12) uses a vertical-bar condition without a clear indicator function, and the derivative expressions should be written with explicit indicators 1(y_j in D_t^alpha) to be understood. These issues make the formal definitions harder to verify.
[Section 4.1] The text says IDLoss is 'twice-differentiable,' but the presence of the indicator 1(y_j in D_t^alpha) and the dependence on alpha_min mean that the second derivative is at best piecewise and can be discontinuous at relevance thresholds where a sample enters or leaves D_t^alpha. The later Appendix correctly describes piecewise smoothness; Section 4.1 should be reworded to avoid the unqualified twice-differentiability claim.
[Throughout] The manuscript contains several typos and editorial remnants: 'All measures disparate treatment' in the Figure 1 caption, 'Statistical Parity compare' in Section 2.1, placeholder conference formatting ('Conference acronym ’XX', '© 2018 ACM'), and inconsistent use of the reference numbering. A careful proofreading pass is needed.
[Section 5.1 and Figure 3] The relevance functions used for each dataset are described as interpolated from boxplot statistics, but no explicit sensitivity analysis is provided for the choice of relevance function. Since ID and IDLoss depend directly on phi(Y), a robustness check over alternative relevance functions would substantially strengthen the empirical claims.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular construction; ID extends the externally validated SERA measure and is tested against external baselines on held-out data, so the derivation chain is self-contained. The appendix's flawed non-convexity and convergence proofs are correctness risks, not circular reductions.

full rationale

Derivation chain: ID (Definition 4.1) applies SERA's normalized squared-error relevance curves (Definition 3.1, Ribeiro & Moniz 2020 [41]) to each intersectional subgroup and integrates the gap between the maximum and minimum curves; IDLoss (Definition 4.2) is then a surrogate summing all groups except the current best; experiments (Section 5) score IDBoost on 80/20 held-out splits using external metrics (MSE, SERA, ΔBGL, SP) in addition to ID, against external baselines (Agarwal, Calders, Pérez-Suay). No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the only user-level input, the relevance function φ, is explicitly declared as a domain-expert or boxplot-interpolated input, and the fairness gains reported for IDBoost also appear on the external ΔBGL and SP metrics, so the results are not forced by construction. The self-citations are SERA [41] and its loss implementation [44], both co-authored by the present authors; SERA is previously published, code-reproduced, and used in this paper as an independent baseline (XGB_SERA) and as a performance metric, so under the independence criteria it is real evidence and does not raise the circularity score. No uniqueness theorem is imported, and no ansatz is smuggled via citation: the relevance-function construction and the piecewise structure of IDLoss are stated explicitly. However, the theoretical appendix contains serious proof defects that must be flagged as correctness risks rather than circularity: (1) Proposition A.3's non-convexity demonstration is directionally wrong, since the displayed inequality IDLoss(0.5ŷA + 0.5ŷB) = 0 < 0.05 satisfies the convexity condition, and with two groups IDLoss equals max(e1, e2), the maximum of two convex quadratics, which is convex; (2) Theorem A.5 Step 4 asserts without proof that 'Each region boundary crossing reduces IDLoss by at least δ > 0', which is false (two-group counterexample with y = (0, 10) and ŷ = (5, 5) gives IDLoss = 25; moving ŷ2 to 4.9 switches αmin and raises IDLoss to 26.01); (3) the global Łojasiewicz constants θ = min θk and c = max ck in Step 2 require a global gradient inequality that the local analyticity argument does not establish; and (4) Theorem A.5 analyzes gradient descent, while IDBoost is actually trained via XGBoost sample reweighting, so the theorem does not directly cover the deployed algorithm.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the relevance function, the binary-grouping assumption, and an unproven region-partition lemma in the convergence proof. No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced; ID is a new metric, not an invented entity.

free parameters (2)

relevance function phi(Y) = boxplot interpolation (or domain expert) per dataset
ID and IDLoss are defined with respect to phi; all fairness scores and loss values depend on this choice. No sensitivity analysis is provided, and the default boxplot method is a modeling choice, not a learned quantity.
IDBoost ensemble weight = 0.5 for IDBoost0.5, 1.0 for IDBoost1.0
The user-specified weight that blends the IDLoss-optimized and SERA-optimized ensembles; the paper tests 0.5 and 1.0 and reports the blended version as best. This is a hyperparameter chosen by hand.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Relevance function phi is available and correctly encodes domain importance.
The entire ID measure and IDLoss are integrals weighted by phi; see Definition 3.1 and Eqs. 1-2. If phi misrepresents user preferences, the metric's fairness conclusions are arbitrary.
domain assumption Protected attributes can be reduced to binary values and intersected into disjoint groups.
Section 5.2 assigns privileged and unprivileged binaries and treats combinations as groups; non-binary individuals are excluded. This limits scope but is acknowledged.
ad hoc to paper Prediction space can be partitioned into regions where the argmin group alpha_min is constant for all relevance thresholds t.
Appendix A Definition A.2 assumes this for the convergence proof, but a prediction vector where the best group switches with t lies outside these regions, so the proof does not cover the general optimization trajectory.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Intersectional Divergence: Measuring Fairness in Regression." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XY4E22JD

@misc{pith2026250500830,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Intersectional Divergence: Measuring Fairness in Regression},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XY4E22JD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.00830}
}

read the original abstract

Fairness in machine learning research is commonly framed in the context of classification tasks, leaving critical gaps in regression. In this paper, we propose a novel approach to measure intersectional fairness in regression tasks, going beyond the focus on single protected attributes from existing work to consider combinations of all protected attributes. Furthermore, we contend that it is insufficient to measure the average error of groups without regard for imbalanced domain preferences. Accordingly, we propose Intersectional Divergence (ID) as the first fairness measure for regression tasks that 1) describes fair model behavior across multiple protected attributes and 2) differentiates the impact of predictions in target ranges most relevant to users. We extend our proposal demonstrating how ID can be adapted into a loss function, IDLoss, that satisfies convergence guarantees and has piecewise smooth properties that enable practical optimization. Through an extensive experimental evaluation, we demonstrate how ID allows unique insights into model behavior and fairness, and how incorporating IDLoss into optimization can considerably improve single-attribute and intersectional model fairness while maintaining a competitive balance in predictive performance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.00830 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** A hypothetical scenario where higher values are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The histograms show the distribution of the target [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (5 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: ID graph for the artificial scenario. The x-axis rep [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The top row illustrates imbalanced predictions us [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Average ID across all 20 runs. The Communities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Overview of the process to approximate SER curves. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Comparison of performance and runtime between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

[1]

Alekh Agarwal, Alina Beygelzimer, Miroslav Dudík, John Langford, and Hanna Wallach. 2018. A reductions approach to fair classification. In International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 60–69

work page 2018
[2]

Alekh Agarwal, Miroslav Dudik, and Zhiwei Steven Wu. 2019. Fair Regression: Quantitative Definitions and Reduction-Based Algorithms. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 97), Kamalika Chaudhuri and Ruslan Salakhutdinov (Eds.). PMLR, 120–129. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v9...

work page 2019
[3]

Jose M Alvarez and Salvatore Ruggieri. 2025. Counterfactual Situation Testing: From Single to Multidimensional Discrimination. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.01267 (2025)

work page Pith review arXiv 2025
[4]

Yahav Bechavod. 2024. Monotone Individual Fairness. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 235), Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Zico Kolter, Katherine Heller, Adrian Weller, Nuria Oliver, Jonathan Scarlett, and Felix Berkenkamp (Eds.). PMLR, 3266–3283. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v2...

work page 2024
[5]

Richard Berk, Hoda Heidari, Shahin Jabbari, Matthew Joseph, Michael Kearns, Jamie Morgenstern, Seth Neel, and Aaron Roth. 2017. A convex framework for fair regression. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.02409 (2017)

arXiv 2017
[6]

Joy Buolamwini and Timnit Gebru. 2018. Gender Shades: Intersectional Accu- racy Disparities in Commercial Gender Classification. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 81), Sorelle A. Friedler and Christo Wilson (Eds.). PMLR, 77–91. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v81...

2018
[7]

Toon Calders, Asim Karim, Faisal Kamiran, Wasif Ali, and Xiangliang Zhang. 2013. Controlling attribute effect in linear regression. In 2013 IEEE 13th international conference on data mining . IEEE, 71–80. doi:10.1109/ICDM.2013.114

work page doi:10.1109/icdm.2013.114 2013
[8]

Simon Caton and Christian Haas. 2024. Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey. ACM Comput. Surv. 56, 7, Article 166 (April 2024), 38 pages. doi:10.1145/3616865

doi:10.1145/3616865 2024

Show all 52 references

[9]

L Elisa Celis, Lingxiao Huang, Vijay Keswani, and Nisheeth K Vishnoi. 2021. Fair classification with noisy protected attributes: A framework with provable guarantees. In International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 1349–1361

2021
[10]

Joymallya Chakraborty, Suvodeep Majumder, and Tim Menzies. 2021. Bias in Machine Learning Software: Why? How? What to Do?. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering(Athens, ...

2021
[11]

Tianqi Chen and Carlos Guestrin. 2016. XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (San Francisco, California, USA) (KDD ’16). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY,...

2016
[12]

Zhenpeng Chen, Jie M Zhang, Max Hort, Federica Sarro, and Mark Harman. 2022. Fairness testing: A comprehensive survey and analysis of trends. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.10223 (2022)

2022 arXiv
[13]

Gordon, and Han Zhao

Jianfeng Chi, Yuan Tian, Geoffrey J. Gordon, and Han Zhao. 2021. Understanding and Mitigating Accuracy Disparity in Regression. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 139) , Marina Meila and Tong ...

2021
[14]

Evgenii Chzhen, Christophe Denis, Mohamed Hebiri, Luca Oneto, and Massim- iliano Pontil. 2020. Fair regression with wasserstein barycenters. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (2020), 7321–7331

2020
[15]

Ivona Colakovic and Sašo Karakatič. 2023. FairBoost: Boosting supervised learn- ing for learning on multiple sensitive features. Knowledge-Based Systems 280 (2023), 110999

2023
[16]

Kimberlé Crenshaw. 2013. Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. In Feminist legal theories. Routledge, 23–51

2013
[17]

Manh Khoi Duong and Stefan Conrad. 2023. Towards Fairness and Privacy: A Novel Data Pre-processing Optimization Framework for Non-binary Protected Attributes. In Australasian Conference on Data Science and Machine Learning . Springer, 105–120

2023
[18]

Cynthia Dwork, Hardt Moritz, Pitassi Toniann, Reingold Omer, and Zemel Richard. 2012. Fairness through awareness. In Proceedings of the 3rd innovations in theoretical computer science conference . Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 214–226

2012
[19]

Jack Fitzsimons, AbdulRahman Al Ali, Michael Osborne, and Stephen Roberts
[20]

James R Foulds, Rashidul Islam, Kamrun Naher Keya, and Shimei Pan. 2020. An intersectional definition of fairness. In 2020 IEEE 36th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE). IEEE, 1918–1921

2020
[21]

Josh Gardner, Christopher Brooks, and Ryan Baker. 2019. Evaluating the fairness of predictive student models through slicing analysis. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on learning analytics & knowledge . 225–234

2019
[22]

Usman Gohar and Lu Cheng. 2023. A survey on intersectional fairness in machine learning: Notions, mitigation, and challenges. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.06969 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[23]

Moritz Hardt, Eric Price, and Nati Srebro. 2016. Equality of opportunity in supervised learning. Advances in neural information processing systems 29 (2016)

2016
[24]

Christine Herlihy, Kimberly Truong, Alexandra Chouldechova, and Miroslav Dudík. 2024. A structured regression approach for evaluating model perfor- mance across intersectional subgroups. In The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 313–325

2024
[25]

Vasileios Iosifidis and Eirini Ntoutsi. 2020. FABBOO-Online Fairness-Aware Learning Under Class Imbalance. In International Conference on Discovery Science. Springer, 159–174

2020
[26]

Faisal Kamiran and Toon Calders. 2012. Data preprocessing techniques for classification without discrimination. Knowledge and information systems 33, 1 (2012), 1–33

2012
[27]

Hamed Karimi, Julie Nutini, and Mark Schmidt. 2020. Linear Convergence of Gra- dient and Proximal-Gradient Methods Under the Polyak-Łojasiewicz Condition. arXiv:1608.04636 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.04636

2020 arXiv
[28]

Junpei Komiyama, Akiko Takeda, Junya Honda, and Hajime Shimao. 2018. Non- convex Optimization for Regression with Fairness Constraints. In Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning (Proceedings of Ma- chine Learning Research, Vol. 80), Jennifer Dy an...

2018
[29]

Matt J Kusner, Joshua Loftus, Chris Russell, and Ricardo Silva. 2017. Counterfac- tual fairness. Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017)

2017
[30]

Tai Le Quy, Arjun Roy, Vasileios Iosifidis, Wenbin Zhang, and Eirini Ntoutsi. 2022. A survey on datasets for fairness-aware machine learning.Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 12, 3 (2022), e1452

2022
[31]

Stanisław Łojasiewicz. 1963. A topological property of real analytic subsets. Equ. Derivees partielles, Paris 1962, Colloques internat. Centre nat. Rech. sci. 117, 87-89 (1963)

1963
[32]

Mostafa M Mohamed and Björn W Schuller. 2022. Normalise for fairness: A simple normalisation technique for fairness in regression machine learning problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.00993 (2022)

2022 arXiv
[33]

Nuno Moniz, Rita Ribeiro, Vitor Cerqueira, and Nitesh Chawla. 2018. SMOTE- Boost for Regression: Improving the Prediction of Extreme Values. In 2018 IEEE 5th International Conference on Data Science and Advanced Analytics (DSAA) . 150–159. doi:10.1109/DSAA.2018.00025

2018
[34]

Giulio Morina, Viktoriia Oliinyk, Julian Waton, Ines Marusic, and Konstantinos Georgatzis. 2019. Auditing and achieving intersectional fairness in classification problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.01468 (2019)

2019 arXiv
[35]

Kamesh Munagala and Govind S. Sankar. 2024. Individual Fairness in Graph Decomposition. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 235) , Ruslan Salakhutdi- nov, Zico Kolter, Katherine Heller, Adrian ...

2024
[36]

Eliana Pastor and Francesco Bonchi. 2024. Intersectional fair ranking via subgroup divergence. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery (2024), 1–37

2024
[37]

Kewen Peng, Joymallya Chakraborty, and Tim Menzies. 2023. FairMask: Better Fairness via Model-Based Rebalancing of Protected Attributes. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 49, 4 (2023), 2426–2439. doi:10.1109/TSE.2022.3220713

2023
[38]

Adrián Pérez-Suay, Valero Laparra, Gonzalo Mateo-García, Jordi Muñoz-Marí, Luis Gómez-Chova, and Gustau Camps-Valls. 2017. Fair kernel learning. In Joint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases . Springer, 339–355

2017
[39]

Dana Pessach and Erez Shmueli. 2022. A review on fairness in machine learning. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 55, 3 (2022), 1–44

2022
[40]

Michael Redmond. 2009. Communities and Crime. UCI Machine Learning Repository. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24432/C53W3X

2009 doi
[41]

Rita P Ribeiro and Nuno Moniz. 2020. Imbalanced regression and extreme value prediction. Machine Learning 109 (2020), 1803–1835

2020
[42]

Arjun Roy, Jan Horstmann, and Eirini Ntoutsi. 2023. Multi-dimensional discrimi- nation in law and machine learning-A comparative overview. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency . 89–100

2023
[43]

Arjun Roy, Vasileios Iosifidis, and Eirini Ntoutsi. 2022. Multi-fairness under class- imbalance. In International Conference on Discovery Science . Springer, 286–301

2022
[44]

Aníbal Silva, Rita P Ribeiro, and Nuno Moniz. 2022. Model Optimization in Imbalanced Regression. In International Conference on Discovery Science. Springer, 3–21

2022
[45]

Ryosuke Sonoda. 2023. Fair oversampling technique using heterogeneous clusters. Information Sciences 640 (2023), 119059

2023
[46]

Luis Torgo and Rita Ribeiro. 2006. Predicting Rare Extreme Values. In Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , Wee-Keong Ng, Masaru Kitsuregawa, Jianzhong Li, and Kuiyu Chang (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Hei- delberg, 816–820

2006
[47]

Linda F Wightman. 1998. LSAC National Longitudinal Bar Passage Study. LSAC Research Report Series. (1998)

1998
[48]

Gezheng Xu, Qi Chen, Charles Ling, Boyu Wang, and Changjian Shui. 2024. Intersectional Unfairness Discovery. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 235), Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Zico Kolter, Katheri...

2024
[49]

Muhammad Bilal Zafar, Isabel Valera, Manuel Gomez Rogriguez, and Krishna P Gummadi. 2017. Fairness constraints: Mechanisms for fair classification. In Artificial intelligence and statistics. PMLR, 962–970

2017
[50]

Lujing Zhang, Aaron Roth, and Linjun Zhang. 2024. Fair Risk Control: A Gener- alized Framework for Calibrating Multi-group Fairness Risks. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 235), Ruslan Salak...

2024
[51]

Chen Zhao and Feng Chen. 2019. Rank-based multi-task learning for fair re- gression. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM) . IEEE, 916–925. Conference acronym ’XX, June 03–05, 2018, Woodstock, NY Joe Germino, Nuno Moniz, Nitesh V. Chawla A Appendix: Theor...

2019
[2019]

Entropy 21, 8 (2019), 741

A general framework for fair regression. Entropy 21, 8 (2019), 741

2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Alekh Agarwal, Alina Beygelzimer, Miroslav Dudík, John Langford, and Hanna Wallach. 2018. A reductions approach to fair classification. In International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 60–69

work page 2018

[2] [2]

Alekh Agarwal, Miroslav Dudik, and Zhiwei Steven Wu. 2019. Fair Regression: Quantitative Definitions and Reduction-Based Algorithms. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 97), Kamalika Chaudhuri and Ruslan Salakhutdinov (Eds.). PMLR, 120–129. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v9...

work page 2019

[3] [3]

Jose M Alvarez and Salvatore Ruggieri. 2025. Counterfactual Situation Testing: From Single to Multidimensional Discrimination. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.01267 (2025)

work page Pith review arXiv 2025

[4] [4]

Yahav Bechavod. 2024. Monotone Individual Fairness. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 235), Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Zico Kolter, Katherine Heller, Adrian Weller, Nuria Oliver, Jonathan Scarlett, and Felix Berkenkamp (Eds.). PMLR, 3266–3283. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v2...

work page 2024

[5] [5]

Richard Berk, Hoda Heidari, Shahin Jabbari, Matthew Joseph, Michael Kearns, Jamie Morgenstern, Seth Neel, and Aaron Roth. 2017. A convex framework for fair regression. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.02409 (2017)

arXiv 2017

[6] [6]

Joy Buolamwini and Timnit Gebru. 2018. Gender Shades: Intersectional Accu- racy Disparities in Commercial Gender Classification. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 81), Sorelle A. Friedler and Christo Wilson (Eds.). PMLR, 77–91. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v81...

2018

[7] [7]

Toon Calders, Asim Karim, Faisal Kamiran, Wasif Ali, and Xiangliang Zhang. 2013. Controlling attribute effect in linear regression. In 2013 IEEE 13th international conference on data mining . IEEE, 71–80. doi:10.1109/ICDM.2013.114

work page doi:10.1109/icdm.2013.114 2013

[8] [8]

Simon Caton and Christian Haas. 2024. Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey. ACM Comput. Surv. 56, 7, Article 166 (April 2024), 38 pages. doi:10.1145/3616865

doi:10.1145/3616865 2024