Fairness Constraints in High-Dimensional Generalized Linear Models

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.

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.

Concerns about algorithmic bias and fairness have increased as artificial intelligence has been incorporated into high-stakes decision-making. Traditional Naive Bayes classifiers, while efficient and interpretable, lack fairness-awareness mechanisms and perpetuate historical biases in sensitive domains such as hiring, credit scoring, and criminal justice. This study develops a fairness-aware extension of the Naive Bayes classifier that mitigates bias while maintaining computational efficiency. We propose the Bias Mitigating Naive Bayes (BMNB) classifier, integrating in-processing and post-processing interventions. The in-processing stage employs a blended likelihood approach combining group-specific and pooled likelihood estimates through a tunable blending parameter alpha to balance fairness and accuracy. The post-processing stage applies output calibration with adaptive thresholding to fine-tune group-specific decision boundaries. Experimental results indicate that BMNB attains Disparate Impact (DI) values of 1.000, 1.171, and 0.997 and Equal Opportunity Difference (EOD) values of -0.217, -0.226, and -0.053 on the Adult, ProPublica, and Framingham datasets, respectively, while maintaining computational efficiency. Ablation studies confirm that the combination of blended likelihood and adaptive thresholding yields superior performance compared to either technique in isolation.