FACEGroup: Feasible and Actionable Counterfactual Explanations for Group Fairness

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.22591v3
• Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2025 14:59:02 GMT
• Title: FACEGroup: Feasible and Actionable Counterfactual Explanations for Group Fairness
• Authors: Christos Fragkathoulas, Vasiliki Papanikou, Evaggelia Pitoura, Evimaria Terzi,
• Abstract summary: This paper introduces the first graph-based framework for generating group counterfactual explanations to audit group fairness.<n>Our framework, FACEGroup, models real-world feasibility constraints, identifies subgroups with similar counterfactuals, and captures key trade-offs in counterfactual generation.
• Score: 6.453283750455735
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Counterfactual explanations assess unfairness by revealing how inputs must change to achieve a desired outcome. This paper introduces the first graph-based framework for generating group counterfactual explanations to audit group fairness, a key aspect of trustworthy machine learning. Our framework, FACEGroup (Feasible and Actionable Counterfactual Explanations for Group Fairness), models real-world feasibility constraints, identifies subgroups with similar counterfactuals, and captures key trade-offs in counterfactual generation, distinguishing it from existing methods. To evaluate fairness, we introduce novel metrics for both group and subgroup level analysis that explicitly account for these trade-offs. Experiments on benchmark datasets show that FACEGroup effectively generates feasible group counterfactuals while accounting for trade-offs, and that our metrics capture and quantify fairness disparities.

Related papers

• Quantifying Query Fairness Under Unawareness [82.33181164973365]
  We introduce a robust fairness estimator based on quantification that effectively handles multiple sensitive attributes beyond binary classifications.<n>Our method outperforms existing baselines across various sensitive attributes and is the first to establish a reliable protocol for measuring fairness under unawareness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-04T16:31:44Z)
• Finite-Sample and Distribution-Free Fair Classification: Optimal Trade-off Between Excess Risk and Fairness, and the Cost of Group-Blindness [14.421493372559762]
  We quantify the impact of enforcing algorithmic fairness and group-blindness in binary classification under group fairness constraints. We propose a unified framework for fair classification that provides distribution-free and finite-sample fairness guarantees with controlled excess risk.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T20:04:17Z)
• Federated Fairness without Access to Sensitive Groups [12.888927461513472]
  Current approaches to group fairness in federated learning assume the existence of predefined and labeled sensitive groups during training. We propose a new approach to guarantee group fairness that does not rely on any predefined definition of sensitive groups or additional labels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-22T19:24:59Z)
• A structured regression approach for evaluating model performance across intersectional subgroups [53.91682617836498]
  Disaggregated evaluation is a central task in AI fairness assessment, where the goal is to measure an AI system's performance across different subgroups. We introduce a structured regression approach to disaggregated evaluation that we demonstrate can yield reliable system performance estimates even for very small subgroups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-26T14:21:45Z)
• A Canonical Data Transformation for Achieving Inter- and Within-group Fairness [17.820200610132265]
  We introduce a formal definition of within-group fairness that maintains fairness among individuals from within the same group. We propose a pre-processing framework to meet both inter- and within-group fairness criteria with little compromise in accuracy. We apply this framework to the COMPAS risk assessment and Law School datasets and compare its performance to two regularization-based methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-23T17:00:20Z)
• Goodhart's Law Applies to NLP's Explanation Benchmarks [57.26445915212884]
  We critically examine two sets of metrics: the ERASER metrics (comprehensiveness and sufficiency) and the EVAL-X metrics. We show that we can inflate a model's comprehensiveness and sufficiency scores dramatically without altering its predictions or explanations on in-distribution test inputs. Our results raise doubts about the ability of current metrics to guide explainability research, underscoring the need for a broader reassessment of what precisely these metrics are intended to capture.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-28T03:03:03Z)
• Fairness Aware Counterfactuals for Subgroups [8.593488857185678]
  We present Fairness Aware Counterfactuals for Subgroups (FACTS), a framework for auditing subgroup fairness through counterfactual explanations. We aim to formulate different aspects of the difficulty of individuals in certain subgroups to achieve recourse. We introduce notions of subgroup fairness that are robust, if not totally oblivious, to the cost of achieving recourse.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-26T18:03:56Z)
• FFB: A Fair Fairness Benchmark for In-Processing Group Fairness Methods [84.1077756698332]
  This paper introduces the Fair Fairness Benchmark (textsfFFB), a benchmarking framework for in-processing group fairness methods. We provide a comprehensive analysis of state-of-the-art methods to ensure different notions of group fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-15T19:51:28Z)
• Counterpart Fairness -- Addressing Systematic between-group Differences in Fairness Evaluation [17.495053606192375]
  When using machine learning to aid decision-making, it is critical to ensure that an algorithmic decision is fair and does not discriminate against specific individuals/groups. Existing group fairness methods aim to ensure equal outcomes across groups delineated by protected variables like race or gender. In cases where systematic differences between groups play a significant role in outcomes, these methods may overlook the influence of non-protected variables.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-29T15:41:12Z)
• DualFair: Fair Representation Learning at Both Group and Individual Levels via Contrastive Self-supervision [73.80009454050858]
  This work presents a self-supervised model, called DualFair, that can debias sensitive attributes like gender and race from learned representations. Our model jointly optimize for two fairness criteria - group fairness and counterfactual fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-15T07:13:54Z)
• Learning Informative Representation for Fairness-aware Multivariate Time-series Forecasting: A Group-based Perspective [50.093280002375984]
  Performance unfairness among variables widely exists in multivariate time series (MTS) forecasting models. We propose a novel framework, named FairFor, for fairness-aware MTS forecasting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-27T04:54:12Z)
• Measuring Fairness of Text Classifiers via Prediction Sensitivity [63.56554964580627]
  ACCUMULATED PREDICTION SENSITIVITY measures fairness in machine learning models based on the model's prediction sensitivity to perturbations in input features. We show that the metric can be theoretically linked with a specific notion of group fairness (statistical parity) and individual fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-16T15:00:33Z)
• Fair Group-Shared Representations with Normalizing Flows [68.29997072804537]
  We develop a fair representation learning algorithm which is able to map individuals belonging to different groups in a single group. We show experimentally that our methodology is competitive with other fair representation learning algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-17T10:49:49Z)
• Measuring Fairness Under Unawareness of Sensitive Attributes: A Quantification-Based Approach [131.20444904674494]
  We tackle the problem of measuring group fairness under unawareness of sensitive attributes. We show that quantification approaches are particularly suited to tackle the fairness-under-unawareness problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-17T13:45:46Z)
• Learning to Generate Fair Clusters from Demonstrations [27.423983748614198]
  We show how to identify the intended fairness constraint for a problem based on limited demonstrations from an expert. We present an algorithm to identify the fairness metric from demonstrations and generate clusters using existing off-the-shelf clustering techniques. We investigate how to generate interpretable solutions using our approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-08T03:09:33Z)
• Beyond Individual and Group Fairness [90.4666341812857]
  We present a new data-driven model of fairness that is guided by the unfairness complaints received by the system. Our model supports multiple fairness criteria and takes into account their potential incompatibilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-21T14:14:44Z)
• Fairness by Explicability and Adversarial SHAP Learning [0.0]
  We propose a new definition of fairness that emphasises the role of an external auditor and model explicability. We develop a framework for mitigating model bias using regularizations constructed from the SHAP values of an adversarial surrogate model. We demonstrate our approaches using gradient and adaptive boosting on: a synthetic dataset, the UCI Adult (Census) dataset and a real-world credit scoring dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-11T14:36:34Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.