Data Bias Mitigation under Coverage Constraints & The Price of Fairness

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.20461v1
• Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2026 16:43:34 GMT
• Title: Data Bias Mitigation under Coverage Constraints & The Price of Fairness
• Abstract summary: We extend a recent bias mitigation framework to incorporate coverage constraints that enforce sufficient representation across groups.<n>Our solution trades small approximation errors in bias for greater data efficiency while satisfying coverage constraints.<n>This is essential both for legal compliance, where regulations may mandate specific fairness thresholds, and for data governance.
• Score: 1.94517837762427
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Machine learning models have been shown to exhibit discriminatory outcomes or degraded performance for individuals at the intersection of multiple sensitive attributes, such as race and gender. This stems in part from two interrelated challenges: the lack of principled measures for quantifying bias (potentially intersectional), and insufficient representation of intersectional subgroups in training data. We extend a recent bias mitigation framework to incorporate coverage constraints that enforce sufficient representation across groups, including intersectional subgroups. Since achieving exactly zero bias for all groups may not be data efficient (meaning it may require large amounts of data), our solution trades small approximation errors in bias for greater data efficiency while satisfying coverage constraints. We also formulate bias mitigation as an integer linear program that optimizes over all mitigation strategies, and characterize the price of fairness, the minimum data modification cost, as a function of fairness tolerance. This is essential both for legal compliance, where regulations may mandate specific fairness thresholds, and for data governance, enabling practitioners to make informed trade-offs between bias reduction and data modification (particularly, data purchasing) costs. We evaluate our techniques on publicly available datasets, demonstrating that bias mitigation via our framework preserves predictive accuracy across multiple classifiers, and that coverage constraints, while motivated by statistical considerations, are essential for preserving downstream ML performance.

Related papers

• OxEnsemble: Fair Ensembles for Low-Data Classification [9.81842989622959]
  We propose a novel approach for efficiently training ensembles and enforcing fairness in low-data regimes.<n>By construction, emphOxEnsemble is both data-efficient, carefully reusing held-out data to enforce fairness reliably, and compute-efficient.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-10T14:08:44Z)
• Fairness for the People, by the People: Minority Collective Action [50.29077265863936]
  Machine learning models often preserve biases present in training data, leading to unfair treatment of certain minority groups.<n>We propose a coordinated minority group strategically relabels its own data to enhance fairness, without altering the firm's training process.<n>Our findings show that a subgroup of the minority can substantially reduce unfairness with a small impact on the overall prediction error.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-21T09:09:39Z)
• 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)
• Fairness Without Harm: An Influence-Guided Active Sampling Approach [32.173195437797766]
  We aim to train models that mitigate group fairness disparity without causing harm to model accuracy. The current data acquisition methods, such as fair active learning approaches, typically require annotating sensitive attributes. We propose a tractable active data sampling algorithm that does not rely on training group annotations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T07:57:38Z)
• 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)
• On Comparing Fair Classifiers under Data Bias [42.43344286660331]
  We study the effect of varying data biases on the accuracy and fairness of fair classifiers. Our experiments show how to integrate a measure of data bias risk in the existing fairness dashboards for real-world deployments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-12T13:04:46Z)
• Unbiased Supervised Contrastive Learning [10.728852691100338]
  In this work, we tackle the problem of learning representations that are robust to biases. We first present a margin-based theoretical framework that allows us to clarify why recent contrastive losses can fail when dealing with biased data. We derive a novel formulation of the supervised contrastive loss (epsilon-SupInfoNCE), providing more accurate control of the minimal distance between positive and negative samples. Thanks to our theoretical framework, we also propose FairKL, a new debiasing regularization loss, that works well even with extremely biased data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-10T13:44:57Z)
• Fair and Optimal Classification via Post-Processing [10.163721748735801]
  This paper provides a complete characterization of the inherent tradeoff of demographic parity on classification problems. We show that the minimum error rate achievable by randomized and attribute-aware fair classifiers is given by the optimal value of a Wasserstein-barycenter problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-03T00:04:04Z)
• Mitigating Algorithmic Bias with Limited Annotations [65.060639928772]
  When sensitive attributes are not disclosed or available, it is needed to manually annotate a small part of the training data to mitigate bias. We propose Active Penalization Of Discrimination (APOD), an interactive framework to guide the limited annotations towards maximally eliminating the effect of algorithmic bias. APOD shows comparable performance to fully annotated bias mitigation, which demonstrates that APOD could benefit real-world applications when sensitive information is limited.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-20T16:31:19Z)
• Unsupervised Learning of Debiased Representations with Pseudo-Attributes [85.5691102676175]
  We propose a simple but effective debiasing technique in an unsupervised manner. We perform clustering on the feature embedding space and identify pseudoattributes by taking advantage of the clustering results. We then employ a novel cluster-based reweighting scheme for learning debiased representation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-06T05:20:46Z)
• Supercharging Imbalanced Data Learning With Energy-based Contrastive Representation Transfer [72.5190560787569]
  In computer vision, learning from long tailed datasets is a recurring theme, especially for natural image datasets. Our proposal posits a meta-distributional scenario, where the data generating mechanism is invariant across the label-conditional feature distributions. This allows us to leverage a causal data inflation procedure to enlarge the representation of minority classes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-25T00:13:11Z)
• Recovering from Biased Data: Can Fairness Constraints Improve Accuracy? [11.435833538081557]
  Empirical Risk Minimization (ERM) may produce a classifier that not only is biased but also has suboptimal accuracy on the true data distribution. We examine the ability of fairness-constrained ERM to correct this problem. We also consider other recovery methods including reweighting the training data, Equalized Odds, and Demographic Parity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2019-12-02T22:00:14Z)

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.