Papers › Comparative Separation: Evaluating Separation on Comparative Judgment Test Data

Comparative Separation: Evaluating Separation on Comparative Judgment Test Data

11 Jan 2026arXiv:2601.06761added by Syntology

Xiaoyin Xi, Neeku Capak, Kate Stockwell, Zhe Yu

Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).

This research seeks to benefit the software engineering society by proposing comparative separation, a novel group fairness notion to evaluate the fairness of machine learning software on comparative judgment test data. Fairness issues have attracted increasing attention since machine learning software is increasingly used for high-stakes and high-risk decisions. It is the responsibility of all software developers to make their software accountable by ensuring that the machine learning software do not perform differently on different sensitive groups -- satisfying the separation criterion. However, evaluation of separation requires ground truth labels for each test data point. This motivates our work on analyzing whether separation can be evaluated on comparative judgment test data. Instead of asking humans to provide the ratings or categorical labels on each test data point, comparative judgments are made between pairs of data points such as A is better than B. According to the law of comparative judgment, providing such comparative judgments yields a lower cognitive burden for humans than providing ratings or categorical labels. This work first defines the novel fairness notion comparative separation on comparative judgment test data, and the metrics to evaluate comparative separation. Then, both theoretically and empirically, we show that in binary classification problems, comparative separation is equivalent to separation. Lastly, we analyze the number of test data points and test data pairs required to achieve the same level of statistical power in the evaluation of separation and comparative separation, respectively. This work is the first to explore fairness evaluation on comparative judgment test data. It shows the feasibility and the practical benefits of using comparative judgment test data for model evaluations.

Code

Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

3 samples harvested; 2 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 1 has no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 0 of the 3 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from hil-se/Comparative_Separation. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Results from the paper

The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2601.06761, was issued in January 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections