Fair Classification with Efficient and Post-hoc Controllable Fairness-Accuracy Trade-off

Ensuring fair and equitable treatment across diverse groups, particularly in multi-class classification tasks, poses a significant challenge due to the persistent biases inherent in machine learning models. Most existing bias mitigation techniques are tailored to binary settings, and the presence of multi-dimensional outputs and complex fairness mechanisms makes their extension to multi-class scenarios neither straightforward nor effective. In this paper, we investigate two fundamental, unresolved challenges in fair classification: (i) characterizing the optimal accuracy-fairness frontier in multi-class settings, and (ii) designing practical algorithms that attain this optimum in different training phases. To tackle these challenges, we first specify an analytically tractable probabilistic formulation of the optimal classifier under fairness constraints. Building upon this, we propose two attribute-blind algorithms to enforce fairness requirements in practice: an in-processing approach for fairness intervention during training via the reduction approach, and a post-processing approach for fine-tuning output probabilities with plug-in estimation. Theoretical analysis reveals that both methods converge to the optimal accuracy-fairness Pareto frontier. Experiments conducted on multiple datasets demonstrate the superior performance of our methods in balancing accuracy and fairness.

Conformal prediction methods provide statistically rigorous marginal coverage guarantees for machine learning models, but such guarantees fail to account for algorithmic biases, thereby undermining fairness and trust. This paper introduces a fair conformal inference framework for classification tasks. The proposed method constructs prediction sets that guarantee conditional coverage on adaptively identified subgroups, which can be implicitly defined through nonlinear feature combinations. By balancing effectiveness and efficiency in producing compact, informative prediction sets and ensuring adaptive equalized coverage across unfairly treated subgroups, our approach paves a practical pathway toward trustworthy machine learning. Extensive experiments on both synthetic and real-world datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of the framework.

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.