Sign inGet started
Paper · arXiv

Do Fair Models Reason Fairly? Counterfactual Explanation Consistency for Procedural Fairness in Credit Decisions

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...

AuthorsGideon Popoola, John Sheppard
Primary categorycs.LG
Published12 May 2026
Last updated at source12 May 2026
cs.LGcs.AIcs.CEcs.CY
Embed this entry
<iframe src="https://silytics.si/embed/item/8d9064d1-70da-4ccc-aeaa-3c20749fdac3" width="420" height="190" style="border:0" loading="lazy" title="Silytics entry"></iframe>

Free, no tracking. More about feeds and embeds.

Silytics shows public metadata from arXiv and links to the original. Information may be incomplete or out of date. Last refreshed 17 October 2026. Licenses and terms of the original apply to the work itself. Not financial, legal or professional advice.