Causal Evidentiary Governance for High-Risk Machine Learning Systems
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Machine learning systems deployed for credit, hiring, and resource distribution are increasingly subject to regulatory oversight from policies such as the EU AI Act and GDPR. Current fairness governance practices rely on observational fairness metrics, post-hoc explainability, and immutable audit logs, but provide limited support for causal attribution and efficient evidentiary verification. We introduce Causal Evidentiary Governance (CEG), a framework in which regulated institutions commit to a versioned directed acyclic graph (DAG) that partitions causal pathways into allowable and disallowed groups. The Causal Harm Rate measures prediction variation attributable to disallowed causal pathways. Each decision is accompanied by a signed Decision-Evidence Packet (DEP), cryptographically binding the prediction to a digest of the published DAG and path-specific attributions. DEP digests can be appended to a Merkle tree to enable logarithmic-cost inclusion proofs. We validate CEG through a two-layer empirical methodology using demographic summaries from four years of PMA credit supervisory data to construct 10,000 synthetic credit applicants across four strategic DAG counterfactuals. Causal Harm Rate isolates injected causal effects more clearly than demographic parity or equalized odds. Cross-model validation and ablation studies assess robustness. Evaluation on the German Credit dataset shows that harm associated with specific causal pathways can be substantially understated by associational fairness metrics. Finally, a proof-of-concept implementation demonstrates operationally plausible throughput and highlights relevant performance tradeoffs.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 10 of its 21 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Sep 2026.
Builds on
10 of 21 references.
References · 10
- 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
- 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
- 2017Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPRcited by 1,086
- 2017Counterfactual Fairnesscited by 802
- 2016Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instrumentscited by 671
- 2017Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairnesscited by 402
- 2020Closing the AI Accountability Gap: Defining an End-to-End Framework for Internal Algorithmic Auditingcited by 380
- 2018Path-Specific Counterfactual Fairnesscited by 179
- 2023Auditing large language models: a three-layered approachcited by 135
- 2019The Sensitivity of Counterfactual Fairness to Unmeasured Confoundingcited by 35
Built on by
Not cited yet.