Abstract
Introduction: Machine learning systems deployed across socioeconomically and geopolitically heterogeneous regions frequently generate unequal error distributions while still appearing compliant under aggregate evaluation metrics. This creates major governance concerns for high-stakes applications such as credit scoring, employment screening, and healthcare decision-making.
Objective: This study evaluated whether commonly used bias mitigation strategies can reduce cross-regional algorithmic disparities without imposing disproportionate performance costs on structurally disadvantaged populations.
Methods: A data-centric bias detection and mitigation pipeline was implemented using a synthetic cross-regional dataset (N = 6 000) parameterised from World Bank, ILO, and Global Findex distributional statistics across six world regions: Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, East Asia, Western Europe, North America, and Latin America. Four fairness metrics were evaluated simultaneously across all regions: AUC-ROC, Equalized Odds, Demographic Parity Gap, and F1 Score.
Results: Pre-processing reweighting produced no measurable fairness improvement across regions. Post-processing isotonic calibration reduced disparity in some high-resource regions but degraded performance in South Asia. False Positive Rates exceeded 0,913 across all regions, revealing threshold collapse, meaning models classified nearly all cases as positive despite high aggregate recall. Fairness intervention costs were geographically asymmetric: Sub-Saharan Africa experienced an F1 reduction of 0,014 for only a 0,007 reduction in Demographic Parity Gap, whereas North America remained largely unaffected.
Conclusions: Cross-regional algorithmic fairness cannot be achieved through post-hoc correction alone. AI governance frameworks should therefore require region-stratified auditing, geographically disaggregated reporting, and region-specific fairness evaluation prior to deployment.
References
1. Pessach, D., & Shmueli, E. (2022). A review on fairness in machine learning. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(3), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1145/3494672
2. Caton, S., & Haas, C. (2023). Fairness in machine learning: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys, 56(7), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1145/3616865
3. Yang, J., Soltan, A. A. S., Eyre, D. W., & Clifton, D. A. (2023). Algorithmic fairness and bias mitigation for clinical machine learning with deep reinforcement learning. Nature Machine Intelligence, 5, 884–894. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-023-00697-3
4. Yang, J., Clifton, L., Dung, N. T., et al. (2024). Mitigating machine learning bias between high-income and low–middle-income countries for enhanced model fairness and generalizability. Scientific Reports, 14, 13234. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-64210-5
5. Xu, J., Xiao, Y., Wang, W. H., et al. (2022). Algorithmic fairness in computational medicine. eBioMedicine, 84, 104250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2022.104250
6. Liang, Y., Hsieh, C. J., & Lee, T. C. M. (2024). A refined reweighing technique for nondiscriminatory classification. PLOS ONE, 19(8), e0308661. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308661
7. Blow, C. H., Qian, L., Gibson, C., Obiomon, P., & Dong, X. (2024). Comprehensive validation on reweighting samples for bias mitigation via AIF360. Applied Sciences, 14(9), 3826. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14093826
8. Yan, S., Odom, P., Pasunuri, R., Kersting, K., & Natarajan, S. (2023). Learning with privileged and sensitive information: A gradient-boosting approach. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 6, 1260583. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2023.1260583
9. Ntoutsi, E., Fafalios, P., Gadiraju, U., et al. (2020). Bias in data-driven artificial intelligence systems: An introductory survey. WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 10(3), e1356. https://doi.org/10.1002/widm.1356
10. Wan, M., Zha, D., Liu, N., & Zou, N. (2023). In-processing modeling techniques for machine learning fairness. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data, 17(3), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1145/3524899
11. Wadsworth, C., Vera, F., & Piech, C. (2022). Achieving fairness through adversarial learning: An application to recidivism prediction. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT). https://doi.org/10.1145/3531146.3533154
12. Mehrabi, N., Morstatter, F., Saxena, N., Lerman, K., & Galstyan, A. (2022). A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning. ACM Computing Surveys, 54(6), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/3457607
13. Chouldechova A. Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments. Big Data. 2017;5(2):153-163. doi:10.1089/big.2016.0047
14. Verma S, Rubin J. Fairness definitions explained. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Software Fairness (FairWare). 2018:1-7. doi:10.1145/3194770.3194776
15. Mitchell S, Potash E, Barocas S, D’Amour A, Lum K. Algorithmic fairness: Choices, assumptions, and definitions. Annu Rev Stat Appl. 2021;8:141-163. doi:10.1146/annurev-statistics-042720-125902
16. Hardt M, Price E, Srebro N. Equality of opportunity in supervised learning. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst. 2016;29:3315-3323. Available from: NeurIPS Paper
17. Foulds JR, Islam R, Keya KN, Pan S. An intersectional definition of fairness. Proceedings of the IEEE 36th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE). 2020:1918-1921. doi:10.1109/ICDE48307.2020.00171
18. Crenshaw K. Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. Univ Chic Leg Forum. 1989;1989(1):139-167.
19. Zhang BH, Lemoine B, Mitchell M. Mitigating unwanted biases with adversarial learning. Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (AIES). 2018:335-340. doi:10.1145/3278721.3278779
20. Zemel R, Wu Y, Swersky K, Pitassi T, Dwork C. Learning fair representations. Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML). 2013:325-333. Available from: PMLR Paper
21. Zafar MB, Valera I, Rodriguez MG, Gummadi KP. Fairness constraints: Mechanisms for fair classification. Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (AISTATS). 2017:962-970. Available from: PMLR Paper
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2026 Linda Bessa-Simons, Clinton Amponsah, Bernard Kyiewu (Author)