Procedural Fairness via Group Counterfactual Explanation
Fairness in machine learning research has largely focused on outcome-oriented fairness criteria such as Equalized Odds, while comparatively less attention has been given to procedural-oriented fairness, which addresses how a model arrives at its predictions. Neglecting procedural fairness means it is possible for a model to generate different explanations for different protected groups, thereby eroding trust. In this work, we introduce Group Counterfactual Integrated Gradients (GCIG), an in-proc
Record details
Published: 11 March 2026
Source: arXiv
Category: Research
Topics: Bias & fairness
Retrieved: 14 July 2026
Related evidence
These records share source-supplied organisations, an exact publisher byline, automatic topics or regions. The reason is shown on every link; related does not mean supporting, agreeing with or verifying this record.
MESD: A Risk-Sensitive Metric for Explanation Fairness Across Intersectional Subgroups
arXiv · 13 March 2026
Fairness of Explanations in Artificial Intelligence (AI): A Unifying Framework, Axioms, and Future Direction toward Responsible AI
arXiv · 11 May 2026
Do Fair Models Reason Fairly? Counterfactual Explanation Consistency for Procedural Fairness in Credit Decisions
arXiv · 12 May 2026
GESD: Beyond Outcome-Oriented Fairness
arXiv · 14 May 2026
Hindsight-Anchored Policy Optimization: Turning Failure into Feedback in Sparse Reward Settings
arXiv · 11 March 2026
The Curse and Blessing of Mean Bias in FP4-Quantized LLM Training
arXiv · 11 March 2026
How to cite this record
ethics.ai (11 March 2026), “Procedural Fairness via Group Counterfactual Explanation,” evidence record 7371, https://ethics.ai/record/7371 (originally published by arXiv).
Use and limitations
This page is a stable index and citation surface for a source record. ethics.ai did not author the underlying report and has not independently verified every claim. Automatic topics may be imperfect. For consequential use, quote and cite the original publisher.