Papers for

machine learning fairness teams

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Joint fairness for multiple sensitive traits reveals hidden disparities

Multi-Sensitive Distributional Fairness: Joint Wasserstein Audits and Shapley Allocation

Abstract: Fairness audits with several sensitive attributes are often performed one coordinate at a time. This can miss purely intersectional disparities: a score may be independent of each sensitive coordinate while depending on their joint profile. We study distributional demographic parity for a real-valued score using one-dimensional Wasserstein geometry. We distinguish two complementary constructions. Conditional and sequential audits characterize joint parity through their zero sets, but their positive values do not generally decompose a fixed joint Wasserstein disparity. By contrast, full-cell conditional quantile functions define a Hilbert-valued random variable whose variance is the joint disparity. Conditional expectations of this quantile process induce a monotone information game: every reveal order yields an exact martingale decomposition of the same joint disparity, while Shapley values provide an order-free attribution across sensitive attributes. Under independent sensitive attributes, the game reduces to a Hoeffding-ANOVA decomposition and Shapley splits each interaction energy equally among its members; under dependence, orthogonality is lost and explicit formulas reveal suppression and redundancy effects that marginal audits can hide. We give fixed-grid estimators and permutation calibration, and illustrate the framework on synthetic examples and ACSIncome. The resulting framework separates three questions that are often conflated: whether joint distributional parity holds, how a fixed joint disparity decomposes along an information path, and how that disparity can be attributed across sensitive coordinates without privileging an ordering.

Tue 13 OctMachine Learning
The gist
Fairness checks in algorithms often look at one sensitive trait at a time, like race or gender, but miss how combined traits might cause unfairness. The authors study a way to measure fairness across multiple traits together by comparing score distributions using a math tool called Wasserstein distance. They develop methods to break down overall unfairness into parts attributed fairly to each sensitive trait, even when traits interact or depend on each other. Their approach also provides tools to test fairness more accurately, and they demonstrate it on examples including income data.
Open → 2610.19252v1

Feature importance clarified by null importance for interpretable machine learning

Null importance: Disentangling relevance for interpretable machine learning

Abstract: Feature importance is central to interpretable machine learning, but the term "importance" encompasses several fundamentally different notions of relevance. We develop a unified perspective based on null importance: a population-level characterization of when a feature is irrelevant under a specified notion of relevance. We consider standard notions of null importance arising from marginal and conditional statistical relevance, predictive risk, functional invariance, and causal effects, and show how these notions answer different scientific questions. We illustrate the framework in two applications in which the distinction is particularly consequential: algorithmic fairness, where common fairness criteria correspond to different notions of null importance, and genomic perturbation modeling, where different notions of relevance lead to different conclusions about what a prediction model has learned. The framework connects three aspects of feature analysis: the scientific question defining relevance, the data and model assumptions that shape how different null notions relate, and the methods used to assess importance. We establish sufficient conditions under which null notions coincide and give counterexamples showing how they diverge when those conditions fail. We then characterize which nulls different method families target and when their zero-importance statistics identify those targets. Finally, simulations spanning feature dependence, redundancy, nonlinearity, hidden features and other standard phenomena, along with case studies on image and multiomics data, provide empirical evidence for these theoretical distinctions and their practical consequences. Taken together, these results provide a common statistical language for relating scientific questions, data-generating assumptions, and algorithms, and clarify the conclusions that feature-importance analyses can support.

Wed 16 SeptMachine Learning
The gist
Feature importance tells us how much a particular feature matters in a machine learning model, but the idea of "importance" can mean different things. The authors clarify this by introducing the idea of null importance, which describes when a feature is truly irrelevant according to different scientific questions. They explore different ways to define this irrelevance and show how these definitions matter in real-world cases like fairness in algorithms and genomic data analysis. Their work helps connect the questions scientists ask with the assumptions they make about data and the methods used to analyze features.
Open → 2609.19511v1

Representation steering does not reliably reduce speech recognition bias

A Probe Shift Is Not a Fairness Fix: The Limits of Representation Steering in Speech Models

Abstract: Automatic speech recognition (ASR) systems exhibit unequal error rates across speaker groups, motivating interventions on their internal representations. We ask whether speaker-linked attributes that are linearly readable from pretrained ASR encoders yield useful directions for reducing group word-error-rate (WER) gaps. Across Whisper-medium, HuBERT-large, and Wav2Vec2-large on Common Voice and the Speech Accent Archive, we probe every encoder layer for metadata-derived sex/gender, age, and native/accent labels; construct centroid and probe-derived directions; inject them at selected layers; and compare downstream probe trajectories with matched WER changes. Sex labels are highly decodable (best macro-F1 0.924--0.941), native/accent labels are also above chance (0.544--0.696), and age is weaker (0.354--0.397). Of 22 post-selected reruns, nine have 95% paired-bootstrap intervals entirely below zero, yet every absolute source-group WER reduction is below 0.7 percentage points. Conversely, a local target-class probe rate can rise from 8.09% to 99.87% while WER worsens. Linear readability is therefore neither evidence of causal use nor a reliable mitigation method. Our results motivate evaluating speech-bias interventions jointly at representation, propagation, and task levels.

Wed 16 SeptComputation and Language
The gist
Speech recognition systems often make more mistakes with some groups of speakers than others. The authors tested whether changing internal model features linked to speaker traits like gender, age, or accent can fix these errors. They found that even when these traits are easy to detect inside the system, nudging the model to ignore them hardly improved error rates. Sometimes making the model pay more attention to these traits actually made errors worse. This means just spotting these traits inside a model is not enough to fix fairness problems.
Open → 2609.18533v1