aiqbench analysis
This paper introduces a rank-based framework that links fairness assessment directly to predictive accuracy and model explainability, moving beyond aggregate parity metrics to identify individual-level unfairness. By applying this method across various algorithms including neural networks and tree-based models, the study demonstrates persistent disparities in lending data that are intrinsic to group characteristics rather than specific algorithmic choices. These findings offer a robust statistical approach for evaluating trustworthy AI systems where fairness must be quantified alongside accuracy.
A Rank Graduation metric for Algorithmic fairness
arXiv:2609.39025v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Fairness assessment in algorithmic decisions that affect individuals, such as credit scoring, often relies on parity measures calculated at the aggregate group level. Such measures may not reveal which individuals experience unfairness or which explanatory factors contribute to it. In this paper, we propose a rank-based framework that evaluates fairness through the distribution of model prediction errors, thereby linking fairness assessment with predictive accuracy and explainability. The framework combines Rank Graduation Fairness (RGF), its integrated measure AURGF, a centered Cramer--von Mises permutation test, and a feature removal procedure for fairness explainability. We evaluate the methodology using logistic regression, random forest, gradient boosting, and a multilayer perceptron. The simulation study shows that protected-group imbalance can reverse descriptive fairness comparisons, whereas the proposed inferential procedure correctly distinguishes fair from unfair mechanisms. Its application to HMDA mortgage data produces model rankings that differ from those obtained with classical fairness criteria. Tree-based models, rather than logistic regression, provide the strongest combination of predictive accuracy and rank-based fairness, while the fairness null hypothesis is rejected for all four models. The persistence of disparity across statistical, bagging, boosting, and neural network specifications, together with the feature removal results, indicates that the observed unfairness is not specific to a single algorithm or predictor, but is associated with group differences embedded in the characteristics of the lending data. These findings support a broader approach to trustworthy artificial intelligence that combines predictive accuracy, fairness measurement, statistical inference, and explainability.
Abstract:Fairness assessment in algorithmic decisions that affect individuals, such as credit scoring, often relies on parity measures calculated at the aggregate group level. Such measures may not reveal which individuals experience unfairness or which explanatory factors contribute to it. In this paper, we propose a rank-based framework that evaluates fairness through the distribution of model prediction errors, thereby linking fairness assessment with predictive accuracy and explainability. The framework combines Rank Graduation Fairness (RGF), its integrated measure AURGF, a centered Cramer--von Mises permutation test, and a feature removal procedure for fairness explainability. We evaluate the methodology using logistic regression, random forest, gradient boosting, and a multilayer perceptron. The simulation study shows that protected-group imbalance can reverse descriptive fairness comparisons, whereas the proposed inferential procedure correctly distinguishes fair from unfair mechanisms. Its application to HMDA mortgage data produces model rankings that differ from those obtained with classical fairness criteria. Tree-based models, rather than logistic regression, provide the strongest combination of predictive accuracy and rank-based fairness, while the fairness null hypothesis is rejected for all four models. The persistence of disparity across statistical, bagging, boosting, and neural network specifications, together with the feature removal results, indicates that the observed unfairness is not specific to a single algorithm or predictor, but is associated with group differences embedded in the characteristics of the lending data. These findings support a broader approach to trustworthy artificial intelligence that combines predictive accuracy, fairness measurement, statistical inference, and explainability.
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Applications (stat.AP); Machine Learning (stat.ML)
arXiv:2609.39025 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2609.39025v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.39025 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 339 words
Related coverage
Handling Imbalanced Classification: What Works Better Than SMOTE
Analytics Vidhya · Jul 12, 2026
An unexamined cause of the OpenAI Hugging Face hacking incident: its binary performance metric
LessWrong · Sep 23, 2026
Bradley-Terry Rankings for Recommender Systems Across Dataset Taxonomies
arXiv · Jun 8, 2026
[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · Sep 18, 2026