Evaluations of classifiers (AI or human or agents) often assume a batch setting in which every agent produces labels on every example in a test set, which can be expensive or impractical in many contexts. This motivates online policies that adaptively select agents to query as examples arrive and update policies as outcomes are observed. We study the problem of selecting, in an online stream, the agent that best balances (i) predictive performance and (ii) subgroup fairness of a sensitive attribute, and that allows for delayed observations of true class labels. We formulate this as a Bayesian multi-armed bandit problem using Thompson Sampling, explicitly balancing accuracy and fairness. We conduct empirical evaluations on real-world datasets spanning problems involving tabular classifiers, large language models, and human labelers, demonstrating substantial reductions in regret relative to baselines. Our theoretical contributions include guarantees on the performance of the selected agent that incorporate both the accuracy and fairness aspects of the problem.
Figures & tables
Dataset
Type of Arms ( N )
C
Sensitive Attribute ( M )
πmin
Bank
ML classifiers (18)
2
Marital Status (2)
0.396
Adult
ML classifiers (18)
2
Race (2)
0.146
Credit
ML classifiers (18)
2
Sex (2)
0.392
ACSIncome
ML classifiers (18)
2
Race (5)
0.036
Toxicity
LLMs (56)
2
Race (2)
0.500
Bios
LLMs (16)
28
Gender (2)
0.461
Table 1: Datasets: N arms, C classes and M subgroups
Algorithm
Twitter
Bank
Adult
Credit
Toxicity
Bios
ACSIncome
(a) Accuracy ( λ=0 )
Round-Robin
4.141
3.494
3.521
3.155
16.73
17.80
7.115
UCB1
1.924
0.819
1.544
0.975
4.930
3.344
2.476
Bayes-UCB
0.864
0.563
0.679
0.615
2.229
0.669
0.845
ϵ -Greedy (0)
1.200
0.836
2.505
1.109
4.151
8.327
5.255
ϵ -Greedy (0.1)
0.915
0.634
0.552
0.530
2.406
2.236
1.001
Table 2: Regret per example (%) after T=50 k rounds for each algorithm (rows) and dataset (columns), for (a) accuracy ( λ=0 ) and (b) fairness ( λ=∞ ), averaged over 10,000 runs (the endpoints of the curves in Figure 1 ). Minimum regret bolded.
Figure 1: Trade-off between accuracy regret (x-axis) and fairness regret (y-axis) after T=50 k rounds, as average regret per example (%) over 10,000 runs. Each point on a curve is one value of λ , from λ=0 (all weight on accuracy) to λ=∞ (all weight on fairness). Datasets (a)–(e) are binary, (f) is multi-class and (g) is multi-subgroup. Grey crosses are the individual arms and the dotted line is the oracle frontier. Round-Robin does not depend on λ and is omitted from (b), (d) and (e), where it is off-scale.
Algorithm
Twitter
Bank
Adult
Credit
Toxicity
Bios
ACSIncome
Round-Robin
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
UCB1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Bayes-UCB
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
ϵ -Greedy (0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ϵ -Greedy (0.1)
0
0
0
3
0
38
0
TS
100
100
100
97
100
62
82
Table 3: % of λ values at which each algorithm has the lowest average cumulative regret after T=50 k rounds.
Appendix figures & tables28 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Arm
Accuracy
DP gap
% Missing
Arm 0
75.1
6.4
39.4
Arm 1
79.5
5.2
37.5
Arm 2 ∗
81.5
6.2
45.8
Arm 3 ∗
76.5
1.2
45.4
Arm 4 ∗
83.0
12.6
39.8
Arm 5
80.4
11.5
34.2
Appendix
Table 4: The 10 arms of Twitter: accuracy, DP gap and share of tweets without a prediction (%). ∗ : optimal for some λ .
Figure 2: Twitter: regret per example (%) against the round t at three values of λ (a)–(c), and after T=50 k rounds against λ (d).
Arm
Accuracy
DP gap
GBM ∗
91.90
2.52
RF
91.26
1.75
LR
91.10
1.77
Tree-d3
90.94
2.63
GBM+S
91.74
2.24
GBM-OP1
91.67
2.16
Appendix
Table 5: The 18 arms of Bank: accuracy and DP gap (%) on the stream population. ∗ : optimal for some λ . Arms are described in Appendix B.1.1 .
Figure 3: Bank: regret per example (%) against the round t at three values of λ (a)–(c), and after T=50 k rounds against λ (d).
Arm
Accuracy
DP gap
GBM
87.47
9.46
RF
86.54
7.45
LR
85.43
9.15
Tree-d3
84.62
6.23
GBM+S ∗
87.49
9.92
GBM-OP1 ∗
87.33
8.09
Appendix
Table 6: The 18 arms of Adult: accuracy and DP gap (%) on the stream population. ∗ : optimal for some λ . Arms are described in Appendix B.1.1 .
Figure 4: Adult: regret per example (%) against the round t at three values of λ (a)–(c), and after T=50 k rounds against λ (d).
Arm
Accuracy
DP gap
GBM
81.84
0.93
RF
81.57
0.87
LR
80.90
1.03
Tree-d3
81.73
0.94
GBM+S
81.88
0.72
GBM-OP1 ∗
81.88
0.72
Appendix
Table 7: The 18 arms of Credit: accuracy and DP gap (%) on the stream population. ∗ : optimal for some λ . Arms are described in Appendix B.1.1 .
Figure 5: Credit: regret per example (%) against the round t at three values of λ (a)–(c), and after T=50 k rounds against λ (d).
Arm
Accuracy
DP gap
together_opt-66b
29.5
0.2
cohere_medium-20220720
29.7
1.0
together_opt-175b
30.9
2.1
together_gpt-neox-20b
31.2
1.3
together_gpt-j-6b
32.1
2.1
openai_davinci
34.9
11.4
Appendix
Table 8: The 56 LLMs of Toxicity: accuracy and DP gap (%). ∗ : optimal for some λ .
Figure 6: Toxicity: regret per example (%) against the round t at three values of λ (a)–(c), and after T=50 k rounds against λ (d).
Arm
Accuracy
TV gap
SmolLM2-360M
13.9
24.3
SmolLM2-1.7B ∗
28.7
13.3
Qwen2.5-0.5B
47.1
28.3
Gemma3-1B
49.9
22.3
Qwen2.5-1.5B
53.0
25.7
OLMo2-7B
56.8
28.7
Appendix
Table 9: The 16 arms of Bios: accuracy and TV gap (%) on the stream population. ∗ : optimal for some λ .
Figure 7: Bios: regret per example (%) against the round t at three values of λ (a)–(c), and after T=50 k rounds against λ (d).
Arm
Accuracy
DP gap (max–min)
GBM ∗
82.22
35.33
RF
79.32
33.02
LR
81.84
36.06
Tree-d3
74.65
31.81
GBM+S
82.20
40.51
GBM-OP1
80.50
30.29
Appendix
Table 10: The 18 arms of ACSIncome: accuracy and DP gap (%) on the stream population. ∗ : optimal for some λ . Arms are described in Appendix B.1.1 .
Figure 8: ACSIncome: regret per example (%) against the round t at three values of λ (a)–(c), and after T=50 k rounds against λ (d).
Figure 19Figure 20
Figure 13: Trade-off between accuracy and fairness regret after T=2,500 rounds, as in Figure 1 .
Figure 14: Trade-off between accuracy and fairness regret after T=5,000 rounds, as in Figure 1 .
Figure 15: Trade-off between accuracy and fairness regret after T=10,000 rounds, as in Figure 1 .
No cost
With cost
Arm
Accuracy
DP gap
Ua
ca
Ua
XGBoost
73.99
6.60
67.38
1
66.38
RandomForest
75.11
6.88
68.23
5
63.23
LogisticRegression
68.13
8.38
59.75
1
58.75
DecisionStump
61.67
0.36
61.31
1
60.31
Biased
50.57
69.88
-19.31
1
-20.31
Appendix
Table 13: Coupon arms: accuracy, DP gap and utility Ua at λ=1 (%), without and with costs ca . Bold: best arm.
Figure 16: Share of rounds in which TS selects each arm over rounds 25k–50k, averaged over 10,000 runs.
Figure 17: Trade-off between accuracy and fairness regret after T=50 k rounds with geometric label delays of mean E[Lt] (columns), using Algorithm 1 . Round-Robin does not use feedback and is taken from the runs without delay; it is omitted where it is off-scale.
Figure 18: ACSIncome-5C: regret per example (%) against the round t at three values of λ (a)–(c), and after T=50 k rounds against λ (d), as in Appendix B.1 .
Figure 28
Figure 20: Trade-off between Brier-score regret (x-axis) and fairness regret (y-axis) on Adult with risk-score arms after T=50 k rounds, as average regret per example (%) over 10,000 runs. Each point on a curve is one value of λ . Grey crosses are the individual arms and the dotted line is the oracle frontier.
Figure 21: Regret per example after T=50 k rounds ( λ=2 ) against 1/πmin , averaged over 10,000 runs. (a)–(g) Datasets of Appendix B.1 ; (h) synthetic instance.
Figure 22: Percentage of λ values at which TS has a lower mean regret than Bayes-UCB, ϵ -Greedy (0) and ϵ -Greedy (0.1), for 30 random subsets of 3 and of 5 arms (one point per subset; 400 runs, T=50,000 ). Filled points: the subset contains a biased arm. Bars: medians.
Figure 23: Trade-off between accuracy and fairness regret after T=50,000 rounds with three frontier arms (GBM, GBM-OP4, GBM-OP6), as in Figure 1 . Means over 10,000 runs.
ML classifiers deployed in high-stakes domains produce predictions whose quality varies systematically across subgroups. For granular subgroups defined by intersections of multiple features, predictions are often inconsistent with the observed data: the model's outputs contradict the evidence available for that subgroup. This problem is exacerbated by regularisation, which improves aggregate performance by collapsing small subgroups into larger groups, disproportionately affecting demographic minorities. We define two requirements for consistent prediction: determinism (identical individuals receive identical predictions) and statistical consistency (we cannot reject, at significance level alpha, the hypothesis that the predictions for a subgroup were drawn from the Bayesian optimal target distribution inferred for that subgroup). From these requirements we derive the Fair Bayesian classifier, which enforces both across every group and subgroup simultaneously and abstains whenever no consistent deterministic prediction is possible. On three benchmark datasets (Adult, COMPAS, and Bank Marketing), standard classifiers produce statistically inconsistent predictions for a substantial proportion of subgroups. Our classifier achieves zero consistency error by construction while exceeding baseline accuracy and multicalibration on every dataset tested. Statistical consistency provides a principled foundation for prediction quality with direct implications for algorithmic fairness. Minority demographics are disproportionately concentrated in small subgroups, precisely where frequentist inference is least reliable; addressing this inference problem is therefore a necessary step toward fair ML. By enforcing Bayesian consistency at the finest resolution the data supports, the our classifier demonstrates that exhaustive subgroup fairness with principled abstention is achievable in practice.
Online model selection in Bayesian bandits raises a fundamental exploration challenge: When an environment instance is sampled from a prior distribution, how can we design an adaptive strategy that explores multiple bandit learners and competes with the best one in hindsight? We address this problem by introducing a new Bayesian algorithm for online model selection in stochastic bandits. We prove an oracle-style guarantee of O(d∗MT+(MT)) on the Bayesian regret, where M is the number of base learners, d∗ is the regret coefficient of the optimal base learner, and T is the time horizon. We also validate our method empirically across a range of stochastic bandit settings, demonstrating performance that is competitive with the best base learner. Additionally, we study the effect of sharing data among base learners and its role in mitigating prior mis-specification.
Aida Afshar, Yuke Zhang, Aldo Pacchiano
Boston University · Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard
Bayesian experimental design (BED) has traditionally focused exclusively on collecting data that is maximally informative, with little consideration of other desirable dataset characteristics, such as fairness. We therefore extend BED to target data that is both informative and fair. To this end, we introduce FairBED, which provides a formalism for the fairness of datasets themselves by measuring how compatible they are with a fair world, in which the target quantity we wish to learn about is unrelated to the sensitive attributes we want to be fair to. We then use this to construct practical fairness-aware BED objectives that maximise expected information gain about the target variables, while penalising information about sensitive attributes and/or their coupling with the target. We further extend FairBED to active learning, and show empirically that models trained on data gathered using FairBED provide improved fairness-accuracy trade-offs compared to randomly acquired data and conventional BED.
Marcel Hedman, Emily Alger, Brieuc Lehmann +2
Department of Statistics, University of Oxford · Department of Statistical Science, University College London