Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces Causal Evidentiary Governance (CEG), a framework designed to enhance regulatory compliance for high-risk machine learning systems by enabling causal attribution and evidentiary verification. By utilizing a versioned directed acyclic graph (DAG) to categorize causal pathways and employing the Causal Harm Rate to quantify prediction variations from disallowed pathways, the framework provides a more nuanced understanding of fairness than traditional metrics. The empirical validation on synthetic credit applicants and the German Credit dataset reveals that CEG can significantly improve the identification of harm associated with specific causal pathways, outperforming conventional fairness measures like demographic parity and equalized odds.
Causal Evidentiary Governance reveals that traditional fairness metrics can obscure significant harm, enabling clearer accountability in high-stakes AI applications.
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.
