Abstract:When a model's performance differs across socially or culturally relevant groups--like race, gender, or the intersections of many such groups--it is often called "biased." While much of the work in algorithmic fairness over the last several years has focused on developing various definitions of model fairness (the absence of group-wise model performance disparities) and eliminating such "bias," much less work has gone into rigorously measuring it. In practice, it important to have high quality, human digestible measures of model performance disparities and associated uncertainty quantification about them that can serve as inputs into multi-faceted decision-making processes. In this paper, we show both mathematically and through simulation that many of the metrics used to measure group-wise model performance disparities are themselves statistically biased estimators of the underlying quantities they purport to represent. We argue that this can cause misleading conclusions about the relative group-wise model performance disparities along different dimensions, especially in cases where some sensitive variables consist of categories with few members. We propose the "double-corrected" variance estimator, which provides unbiased estimates and uncertainty quantification of the variance of model performance across groups. It is conceptually simple and easily implementable without statistical software package or numerical optimization. We demonstrate the utility of this approach through simulation and show on a real dataset that while statistically biased estimators of group-wise model performance disparities indicate statistically significant differences, when accounting for statistical bias in the estimator, the estimated between-group disparities are no longer statistically significant.

The Target Study: A Conceptual Model and Framework for Measuring Disparity

Measuring Changes in Disparity Gaps: An Application to Health Insurance

Evaluating Effects of Multilevel Interventions on Disparity in Health and Healthcare Decisions

Decomposition analysis to identify intervention targets for reducing disparities

Modeling Access Differences to Reduce Disparity in Resource Allocation

De-Biasing the Bias: Methods for Improving Disparity Assessments with Noisy Group Measurements

Adaptive Sampling Strategies to Construct Equitable Training Datasets

Predicting unequal treatment : From social perception to societal outcomes

Choosing an Optimal Method for Causal Decomposition Analysis: A Better Practice for Identifying Contributing Factors to Health Disparities

Meaningful causal decompositions in health equity research: definition, identification, and estimation through a weighting framework

Mitigating Included- and Omitted-Variable Bias in Estimates of Disparate Impact

Mapping Health Disparities:: Leveraging Area-Based Deprivation Indices for Targeted Chronic Disease Intervention

Comparing Targeting Strategies for Maximizing Social Welfare with Limited Resources

Auditing and Enforcing Conditional Fairness via Optimal Transport

Matching with multiple criteria and its application to health disparities research

Integrating equity indicators for hospital reporting metrics

Unveiling disparities: examining differential item functioning's impact on racial health equity among white and black populations

Multi-Dimensional Item Response Theory Models for Estimating Racial/Ethnic Health Care Quality Disparities

De-biasing "bias" measurement

Accounting for survey design in Bayesian disaggregation of survey-based areal estimates of proportions: an application to the American Community Survey

Composite Indices of Social Determinants of Health: Overview, Measurement Gaps, and Research Priorities for Health Equity