mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Data Bias Mitigation under Coverage Constraints & The Price of Fairness

arXiv 2606.20461 ↗First posted 18 Jun 2026cs.LG cs.CY cs.DBcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

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.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 40 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Jun 2026.

Builds on

17 of 40 references.

References · 17

  1. 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,917
  2. 2016Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scorescited by 586
  3. 2017Preventing Fairness Gerrymandering: Auditing and Learning for Subgroup Fairnesscited by 384
  4. 2018Why Is My Classifier Discriminatory?cited by 143
  5. 2018An Intersectional Definition of Fairnesscited by 127
  6. 2022Bias Mitigation for Machine Learning Classifiers: A Comprehensive Surveycited by 125
  7. 2018The Measure and Mismeasure of Fairnesscited by 95
  8. 2018An Empirical Study of Rich Subgroup Fairness for Machine Learningcited by 81
  9. 2022Towards Intersectionality in Machine Learning: Including More Identities, Handling Underrepresentation, and Performing Evaluationcited by 59
  10. 2022Representation Bias in Data: A Survey on Identification and Resolution Techniquescited by 37
  11. 2020On the Moral Justification of Statistical Paritycited by 30
  12. 2021Interpretable Data-Based Explanations for Fairness Debuggingcited by 30
5 more
  1. 2022The Principles of Data-Centric AI (DCAI)cited by 26
  2. 2018Assessing and Remedying Coverage for a Given Datasetcited by 21
  3. 2022De-biasing "bias" measurementcited by 20
  4. 2023Disentangling and Operationalizing AI Fairness at LinkedIncited by 7
  5. 2024A Principled Approach for Data Bias Mitigationcited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.