As algorithmic decision making has become increasingly ubiquitous even in high-stakes settings, significant effort has been invested in defining, detecting, and eliminating unfair model-driven outcomes. Prior work has largely focused on estimating the fairness properties of a given predictive model, and quantifying uncertainty based on variability in a fixed model's performance across evaluation datasets. Alternatively, we can also ask about uncertainty that the model inherits from its training data; here we evaluate data fairness - fairness in the data generating process used for training. We perform inference on data fairness using targeted learning, a flexible framework for nonparametric inference, and derive estimators for demographic parity, equal opportunity, and conditional mutual information. Simulations show that our data fairness estimators improve confidence-interval coverage and reduce false detections of population unfairness relative to fixed-model inference. We also demonstrate their application to real data.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Coverage (top) and rejection rate (bottom) under independent retraining. Columns show the null and two population disparities. Color indicates evaluation size; line style distinguishes TL and model fairness. Reference lines mark nominal coverage 0.95 and null rejection rate 0.05 . Under the alternatives, rejection is power. Each point uses 1000 independent training datasets and 50 evaluations per fit; bars and bands show ±1.96 Monte Carlo standard errors accounting for shared fits.
Figure 2. Coverage (left) and signed bias relative to population data fairness (right) as training size increases. Bias is 100{R−1∑r=1RΨ^r−Ψ} in percentage points. Each point uses R=1000 replicates and 2000 evaluation observations. Color identifies tree-ensemble capacity; solid circles denote TL and dashed squares denote model fairness. Bars show approximate pointwise Monte Carlo uncertainty ( ±1.96 MCSE), not the fairness intervals evaluated within replicates. Reference lines mark 0.95 coverage and zero bias.
Figure 3. CMI estimates and empirical Wald rejection rates as the conditioning set changes. The true CMI is zero when all confounders Z are included; outcome-only predictors and noise features are always retained. Left: mean TMLE estimate, with shading between the mean endpoints of the nominal 95% two-sided confidence intervals I^±1.96se . Right: empirical rejection rate of the one-sided rule I^−1.645se>0 , with the dashed line at the nominal 0.05 level. Each point uses 200 simulations.
Metric
Dataset
Data fairness
Model fairness
Prob. Parity
Adult
0.180 (0.170, 0.191)
0.178 (0.170, 0.185)
Law
0.192 (0.172, 0.212)
0.194 (0.179, 0.208)
Prob. Eq. Opp.
Adult
0.072 (0.039, 0.105)
0.101 (0.074, 0.129)
Law
0.135 (0.120, 0.150)
0.127 (0.113, 0.141)
Parity (thresholded)
Adult
0.176 (0.166, 0.186)
0.176 (0.166, 0.186)
Law
0.228 (0.204, 0.252)
0.228 (0.204, 0.252)
Table 1. Data- and model-fairness estimates with nominal 95% confidence intervals in parentheses. Parity and equal-opportunity comparisons share the fitted outcome model and evaluation split. CMI uses TMLE (Section 2.5 ) and is reported only for data fairness.
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
ntrain=500
ntrain=10,000
Outcome D^
Group π^
Coverage
Bias (pp)
Coverage
Bias (pp)
Oracle
Oracle
0.952 (0.007)
0.01 (0.04)
0.951 (0.007)
0.03 (0.04)
Oracle
Linear
0.949 (0.007)
0.01 (0.04)
0.951 (0.007)
0.03 (0.04)
Linear
Oracle
0.953 (0.007)
0.03 (0.04)
0.955 (0.007)
0.04 (0.04)
Quadratic
Quadratic
0.917 (0.009)
-0.01 (0.04)
0.950 (0.007)
0.03 (0.04)
Quadratic
Linear
0.903 (0.009)
0.02 (0.05)
0.950 (0.007)
0.03 (0.04)
Appendix
Table 2. TL coverage and signed bias for R=1000 replicates per configuration, at the smallest and largest training sizes in the nuisance-specification experiment. Intervals have nominal 95% coverage. Parentheses contain Monte Carlo standard errors; bias is in percentage points (pp).
Figure 4. CMI estimation error for TMLE and KNN (left, 10 replicates per estimator and configuration) and nominal two-sided TMLE interval coverage (right, 100 replicates per configuration). Reference lines mark zero error.
κ
I(Y;G∣X)
0
0.0000
0.5
0.0054
1
0.0420
1.5
0.1189
2
0.2080
2.5
0.2770
Appendix
Table 3. Monte Carlo conditional CMI truth I(Y;G∣X) by coupling weight; the value at κ=0 is exactly zero.
Figure 5. Paired one-step and TMLE results at the largest sample size in each experiment. Top: bias and two-sided coverage as coupling varies ( n=10,000 , R=100 ). Bottom: mean CMI and one-sided rejection rates as confounders are added ( n=5000 , R=200 ). Dashed lines mark zero, nominal coverage, or the nominal rejection cutoff.
Experiment
n
Method
Bias
Coverage
Rejection
Conditioning
5000
One-step
-0.0186 (0.00039)
0.03 (0.01)
0.00 (0.00)
Conditioning
5000
TMLE
0.000568 (4.4e-05)
0.97 (0.01)
0.09 (0.02)
Coupling
10000
One-step
-0.00971 (0.0002)
0.00 (0.00)
0.00 (0.00)
Coupling
10000
TMLE
0.000128 (1.5e-05)
1.00 (0.00)
0.00 (0.00)
Appendix
Table 4. Empirical bias, two-sided coverage, and one-sided rejection at conditional independence, using the largest sample size in each design. Parentheses contain Monte Carlo standard errors.
Algorithmic fairness studies how automated decisions distribute errors, opportunities, and harms across groups, and how to measure and reduce disparities.
Machine learning models trained on sensitive data can inadvertently leak population-level information about their training distributions -- a threat known as distribution inference attack (DIA). An adversary with black-box access can infer sensitive demographic properties, such as subgroup proportions, without observing any training data directly. While defenses such as differential privacy and property unlearning have been proposed, the link between fairness constraints and distributional leakage remains unexplored. We propose Fair Fine-tuning (FFt): a trained model is fine-tuned on samples from the complementary distribution under an Equalized Odds (EO) constraint. We provide a complete theoretical characterization, proving the tight bound Adv(A,Mf)≤ΔEO⋅W, where W quantifies how distinguishable the two training distributions are by their sensitive-attribute composition. We also establish a necessary condition for FFt to reduce adversarial advantage and prove tightness of the bound. We evaluate across six datasets spanning tabular (ACS Income, COMPAS, German Credit), image (UTKFaces), and NLP (Bias in Bios) modalities. Rehearsal-based FFt consistently reduces the adversarial accuracy gap below the detection threshold τ!=!0.1 across all settings; on ACS Income, the gap falls from ∼!15 to under 4. Our work provides the first formal bound connecting a model's measured EO disparity directly to its adversarial advantage in the DIA game, opening a new avenue for unified fairness-and-privacy defenses.
We study fairness-accuracy tradeoffs when a single predictive model must serve multiple demographic groups. A useful tool for understanding this tradeoff is the fairness-accuracy (FA) Pareto frontier, which characterizes the set of models that cannot be improved in either fairness or accuracy without worsening the other. While characterizing the FA frontier requires full knowledge of the data distribution, we focus on the finite-sample regime, quantifying how well a designer can approximate any point on the frontier from limited data and bounding the worst-case gap. In particular, we derive worst-case-optimal estimators that depend on the designer's knowledge of the covariate distribution. For each estimator, we characterize how finite-sample effects asymmetrically impact each group's welfare and identify optimal sample allocation strategies. Finally, we provide uniform finite-sample bounds along the entire FA frontier, quantifying finite-sample deviations across alternative fairness-accuracy tradeoffs.
Alireza Fallah, Michael I. Jordan, Annie Ulichney
Department of Computer Science and Ken Kennedy Institute, Rice University · Departments of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences and Statistics, University of California, Berkeley; Inria Paris · Department of Statistics, University of California, Berkeley
Bayesian experimental design (BED) has traditionally focused exclusively on collecting data that is maximally informative, with little consideration of other desirable dataset characteristics, such as fairness. We therefore extend BED to target data that is both informative and fair. To this end, we introduce FairBED, which provides a formalism for the fairness of datasets themselves by measuring how compatible they are with a fair world, in which the target quantity we wish to learn about is unrelated to the sensitive attributes we want to be fair to. We then use this to construct practical fairness-aware BED objectives that maximise expected information gain about the target variables, while penalising information about sensitive attributes and/or their coupling with the target. We further extend FairBED to active learning, and show empirically that models trained on data gathered using FairBED provide improved fairness-accuracy trade-offs compared to randomly acquired data and conventional BED.
Marcel Hedman, Emily Alger, Brieuc Lehmann +2
Department of Statistics, University of Oxford · Department of Statistical Science, University College London