Towards Provably Fair Machine Learning: Bayesian Approaches For Consistent and Transparent Predictions

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.12615v1
• Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2026 19:16:26 GMT
• Title: Towards Provably Fair Machine Learning: Bayesian Approaches For Consistent and Transparent Predictions
• Abstract summary: We present a principled algorithm for consistency in subgroup predictions.<n>Our classifier achieves zero consistency error by construction while exceeding baseline accuracy.<n>Minority demographics are disproportionately concentrated in small subgroups, precisely where frequentist inference is least reliable.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: ML classifiers deployed in high-stakes domains produce predictions whose quality varies systematically across subgroups. For granular subgroups defined by intersections of multiple features, predictions are often inconsistent with the observed data: the model's outputs contradict the evidence available for that subgroup. This problem is exacerbated by regularisation, which improves aggregate performance by collapsing small subgroups into larger groups, disproportionately affecting demographic minorities. We define two requirements for consistent prediction: determinism (identical individuals receive identical predictions) and statistical consistency (we cannot reject, at significance level alpha, the hypothesis that the predictions for a subgroup were drawn from the Bayesian optimal target distribution inferred for that subgroup). From these requirements we derive the Fair Bayesian classifier, which enforces both across every group and subgroup simultaneously and abstains whenever no consistent deterministic prediction is possible. On three benchmark datasets (Adult, COMPAS, and Bank Marketing), standard classifiers produce statistically inconsistent predictions for a substantial proportion of subgroups. Our classifier achieves zero consistency error by construction while exceeding baseline accuracy and multicalibration on every dataset tested. Statistical consistency provides a principled foundation for prediction quality with direct implications for algorithmic fairness. Minority demographics are disproportionately concentrated in small subgroups, precisely where frequentist inference is least reliable; addressing this inference problem is therefore a necessary step toward fair ML. By enforcing Bayesian consistency at the finest resolution the data supports, the our classifier demonstrates that exhaustive subgroup fairness with principled abstention is achievable in practice.

Related papers

• How Useful is Causal Invariance for Domain Adaptation in Finite-Sample Settings? [58.740078141879984]
  Machine learning models often degrade when they are deployed on a target distribution that differs from the source distributions they were trained on.<n>Recent work in causality-based domain generalization has shown how shared causal structure can induce invariant predictors.<n>In this paper, we study when full or partial causal knowledge can provably improve supervised domain adaptation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-10T21:07:49Z)
• Size-adaptive Hypothesis Testing for Fairness [8.315080617799445]
  We introduce a unified, size-adaptive, hypothesis-testing framework that turns fairness assessment into an evidence-based statistical decision.<n>We prove a Central-Limit result for the statistical parity difference, leading to analytic confidence intervals and a Wald test whose type-I (false positive) error is guaranteed at level $alpha$.<n>For the long tail of small intersectional groups, we derive a fully Bayesian Dirichlet-multinomial estimator.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-12T11:22:09Z)
• 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)
• Class-Conditional Distribution Balancing for Group Robust Classification [11.525201208566925]
  Spurious correlations that lead models to correct predictions for the wrong reasons pose a critical challenge for robust real-world generalization.<n>We offer a novel perspective by reframing the spurious correlations as imbalances or mismatches in class-conditional distributions.<n>We propose a simple yet effective robust learning method that eliminates the need for both bias annotations and predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-24T07:15:53Z)
• Project-Probe-Aggregate: Efficient Fine-Tuning for Group Robustness [61.45587642780908]
  We propose a three-step approach for parameter-efficient fine-tuning of image-text foundation models.<n>Our method improves its two key components: minority samples identification and the robust training algorithm.<n>Our theoretical analysis shows that our PPA enhances minority group identification and is Bayes optimal for minimizing the balanced group error.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-12T15:46:12Z)
• Conformal Prediction Sets with Improved Conditional Coverage using Trust Scores [52.92618442300405]
  It is impossible to achieve exact, distribution-free conditional coverage in finite samples.<n>We propose an alternative conformal prediction algorithm that targets coverage where it matters most.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-17T12:01:56Z)
• Is this model reliable for everyone? Testing for strong calibration [4.893345190925178]
  In a well-calibrated risk prediction model, the average predicted probability is close to the true event rate for any given subgroup. The task of auditing a model for strong calibration is well-known to be difficult due to the sheer number of potential subgroups. Recent developments in goodness-of-fit testing offer potential solutions but are not designed for settings with weak signal.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-28T00:59:14Z)
• Correcting Underrepresentation and Intersectional Bias for Classification [49.1574468325115]
  We consider the problem of learning from data corrupted by underrepresentation bias. We show that with a small amount of unbiased data, we can efficiently estimate the group-wise drop-out rates. We show that our algorithm permits efficient learning for model classes of finite VC dimension.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-19T18:25:44Z)
• Statistical Inference for Fairness Auditing [4.318555434063274]
  We frame this task as "fairness auditing," in terms of multiple hypothesis testing. We show how the bootstrap can be used to simultaneously bound performance disparities over a collection of groups. Our methods can be used to flag subpopulations affected by model underperformance, and certify subpopulations for which the model performs adequately.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-05T17:54:22Z)
• On Learning Fairness and Accuracy on Multiple Subgroups [9.789933013990966]
  We present a principled method for learning a fair predictor for all subgroups via formulating it as a bilevel objective. Specifically, the subgroup specific predictors are learned in the lower-level through a small amount of data and the fair predictor. In the upper-level, the fair predictor is updated to be close to all subgroup specific predictors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-19T18:59:56Z)
• Examining and Combating Spurious Features under Distribution Shift [94.31956965507085]
  We define and analyze robust and spurious representations using the information-theoretic concept of minimal sufficient statistics. We prove that even when there is only bias of the input distribution, models can still pick up spurious features from their training data. Inspired by our analysis, we demonstrate that group DRO can fail when groups do not directly account for various spurious correlations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-14T05:39:09Z)
• Selective Classification Can Magnify Disparities Across Groups [89.14499988774985]
  We find that while selective classification can improve average accuracies, it can simultaneously magnify existing accuracy disparities. Increasing abstentions can even decrease accuracies on some groups. We train distributionally-robust models that achieve similar full-coverage accuracies across groups and show that selective classification uniformly improves each group.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-27T08:51:30Z)

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.