Do Fair Models Reason Fairly? Counterfactual Explanation Consistency for Procedural Fairness in Credit Decisions

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.12701v1
• Date: Tue, 12 May 2026 19:54:25 GMT
• Title: Do Fair Models Reason Fairly? Counterfactual Explanation Consistency for Procedural Fairness in Credit Decisions
• Abstract summary: We show that existing outcome-fair models can still apply fundamentally different reasoning to individuals.<n>We propose Counterfactual Explanation Consistency ( CEC), a framework that detects and mitigates this bias.<n>Key contributions include a nearest-neighbor counterfactual generation method, a modified baseline for integrated gradient comparisons, and a corresponding training loss.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Machine learning algorithms in socially sensitive domains (e.g., credit decisions) often focus on equalizing predictive outcomes. However, satisfying these metrics does not guarantee that models use the same reasoning for different groups. We show that existing outcome-fair models can still apply fundamentally different reasoning to individuals, a ``hidden procedural bias'' missed by standard fairness metrics and algorithms. We propose Counterfactual Explanation Consistency (CEC), a framework that detects and mitigates this bias by aligning feature attributions between individuals and their counterfactual counterparts. Key contributions include a nearest-neighbor counterfactual generation method, a modified baseline for integrated gradient comparisons, an individual-level procedural fairness metric, and a corresponding training loss. We introduce a taxonomy identifying ``Regime B'' (same outcome, different reasoning) as a critical blind spot. Experiments on synthetic data, German Credit, Adult Income, and HMDA mortgage data demonstrate that outcome-fair baselines exhibit substantial hidden bias, while CEC substantially reduces it with modest utility cost.

Related papers

• Fairness Invariants: A Relational Approach to Explaining and Mitigating Fairness Bugs [12.685314553489965]
  We present REMI, a framework for the automated localization, explanation, and mitigation of individual discrimination.<n>We introduce a bidirectional relational explanation framework that learns over paired examples $(x, x')$ to identify regions of the input space where fairness is violated.<n> REMI utilizes three data-alignment techniques to infer interpretable rule-based models that act as "fairness invariants"
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-26T05:47:17Z)
• CDRRM: Contrast-Driven Rubric Generation for Reliable and Interpretable Reward Modeling [61.75914342638658]
  CDRRM (Contrast-Driven Reward Model) is a framework for high-quality rubric generation and guided preference judgment.<n>This work offers a scalable, interpretable, and data-efficient path for reward modeling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-09T07:15:23Z)
• On the use of graph models to achieve individual and group fairness [0.6299766708197883]
  We provide a theoretical framework based on Sheaf Diffusion to leverage tools based on dynamical systems and homology to model fairness.<n>We present a collection of network topologies handling different fairness metrics, leading to a unified method capable of dealing with both individual and group bias.<n>The paper showcases the performance of the proposed models in terms of accuracy and fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-13T18:17:43Z)
• Cost Efficient Fairness Audit Under Partial Feedback [14.57835291220813]
  We study the problem of auditing the fairness of a given classifier under partial feedback.<n>We introduce a novel cost model for acquiring additional labeled data.<n>We show that our algorithms consistently outperform natural baselines by around 50% in terms of audit cost.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-04T08:38:03Z)
• Identifying and Mitigating Social Bias Knowledge in Language Models [52.52955281662332]
  We propose a novel debiasing approach, Fairness Stamp (FAST), which enables fine-grained calibration of individual social biases.<n>FAST surpasses state-of-the-art baselines with superior debiasing performance.<n>This highlights the potential of fine-grained debiasing strategies to achieve fairness in large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-07T17:14:58Z)
• Evaluating the Fairness of Discriminative Foundation Models in Computer Vision [51.176061115977774]
  We propose a novel taxonomy for bias evaluation of discriminative foundation models, such as Contrastive Language-Pretraining (CLIP) We then systematically evaluate existing methods for mitigating bias in these models with respect to our taxonomy. Specifically, we evaluate OpenAI's CLIP and OpenCLIP models for key applications, such as zero-shot classification, image retrieval and image captioning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T10:32:39Z)
• 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)
• Arbitrariness and Social Prediction: The Confounding Role of Variance in Fair Classification [31.392067805022414]
  Variance in predictions across different trained models is a significant, under-explored source of error in fair binary classification. In practice, the variance on some data examples is so large that decisions can be effectively arbitrary. We develop an ensembling algorithm that abstains from classification when a prediction would be arbitrary.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-27T06:52:04Z)
• D-BIAS: A Causality-Based Human-in-the-Loop System for Tackling Algorithmic Bias [57.87117733071416]
  We propose D-BIAS, a visual interactive tool that embodies human-in-the-loop AI approach for auditing and mitigating social biases. A user can detect the presence of bias against a group by identifying unfair causal relationships in the causal network. For each interaction, say weakening/deleting a biased causal edge, the system uses a novel method to simulate a new (debiased) dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-10T03:41:48Z)
• The Fairness of Credit Scoring Models [0.0]
  In credit markets, screening algorithms aim to discriminate between good-type and bad-type borrowers. This can be unintentional and originate from the training dataset or from the model itself. We show how to formally test the algorithmic fairness of scoring models and how to identify the variables responsible for any lack of fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-20T14:20:40Z)
• 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)
• Convex Fairness Constrained Model Using Causal Effect Estimators [6.414055487487486]
  We devise novel models, called FairCEEs, which remove discrimination while keeping explanatory bias. We provide an efficient algorithm for solving FairCEEs in regression and binary classification tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-16T03:40:04Z)

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.