Measuring Model-Induced Discrimination via Efficient Fairness Approximation

Individual fairness, the notion that "similar individuals should be treated similarly," provides a strong and flexible fairness guarantee for algorithmic decision makers. However, a barrier to implementing individual fairness in practice is the difficulty of learning the similarity metric over individuals. In this work, we present an algorithm for learning a Mahalanobis similarity metric from triplet queries of the form "is individual $i$ more similar to individual $j$ or $k$?" We work in the standard Bradley-Terry model for pairwise comparisons. Our algorithm consists of a spectral initialization step followed by gradient descent. We provide extensive theoretical guarantees on our algorithm, showing that it converges quickly to the ground truth metric despite the non-convexity of the loss in our model. Because our focus is on fairness, we also show that individual fairness with respect to an estimated metric is sufficient to achieve similar fairness with respect to the true metric. We also discuss potential applications of our work to AI model tuning. Finally, we present experimental results that demonstrate the convergence of our algorithm and the fairness performance of downstream fair predictors trained on our estimated metric.

The evaluation of fairness in machine learning systems has become a central concern in high-stakes applications, including biometric recognition, healthcare decision-making, and automated risk assessment. Existing approaches typically rely on a small number of fairness metrics to assess model behaviour across group partitions, implicitly assuming that these metrics provide consistent and reliable conclusions. However, different fairness metrics capture distinct statistical properties of model performance and may therefore produce conflicting assessments when applied to the same system. In this work, we investigate the consistency of fairness evaluation by conducting a systematic multi-metric analysis of demographic bias in machine learning models. Using face recognition as a controlled experimental setting, we evaluate model performance across multiple group partitions under a range of commonly used fairness metrics, including error-rate disparities and performance-based measures. Our results demonstrate that fairness assessments can vary significantly depending on the choice of metrics, leading to contradictory conclusions regarding model bias. To quantify this phenomenon, we introduce the Fairness Disagreement Index (FDI), a measure designed to capture the degree of inconsistency across fairness metrics. We further show that disagreement remains high across thresholds and model configurations. These findings highlight a critical limitation in current fairness evaluation practices and suggest that single-metric reporting is insufficient for reliable bias assessment.

Machine learning models are widely used in clinical applications, social media, law enforcement and critical infrastructure. Verifying whether their outputs are biased against disadvantaged groups or individuals is crucial to ensuring they are fair and allowing their use in such settings. A rigorous risk assessment of possible fairness violations requires quantifying the uncertainty associated with selecting and estimating such models. Yet, this is rarely done in the literature, which focuses on identifying a single model with a suitable trade-off between predictive accuracy and fairness. In this paper, we move beyond point estimation and discuss frequentist and Bayesian approaches to uncertainty quantification for fair machine learning, with practical examples and implications for simulated and real data.