Minority Collective Action for User-Side Fairness

When machine learning systems under-perform for particular subgroups, affected users typically have no way to correct these disparities without relying on platform-level fixes. Existing approaches to algorithmic fairness rely on provider-centric approaches to correct these failures, leaving users with no external lever when faced with harm. Recent work in Algorithmic Collective Action shows that coordinated users can steer an algorithmic system toward a collective goal, but the existing mechanisms require the provider to retrain on the collective's modified data which users may not have control over. We propose Test-Time Collective Action (TTCA), a framework through which a group of users who share query access to the platform, can correct disparities affecting under-served subgroup without participating in the platform's training loop. We implement this through a proxy-based mechanism where the collective pools query access to a black-box API to extract a proxy of the platform, then optimizes a per-class universal perturbation against the proxy. Each member applies this perturbation to their own inputs at submission time, requiring no cooperation from the platform. We empirically evaluate the mechanism on CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, and FairFace, showing that modestly-sized collectives close most of the subgroup accuracy gap, transfer across architectures (a small proxy can attack a larger platform), and improve worst-group accuracy, equal-opportunity gap, and disparate impact. A query-budget analysis comparing a per-user black-box attack baseline shows that pooling is cheaper than each subgroup member attacking alone. Test-time collective action thus offers corrective intervention to users when platform-side remediation is unavailable or delayed.

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.

Machine learning algorithms in socially sensitive domains (e.g., credit decisions) often focus on equalizing predictive outcomes. However, satisfying these metrics does not guarantee that models use the same reasoning for different groups. We show that existing outcome-fair models can still apply fundamentally different reasoning to individuals, a hidden procedural bias'' missed by standard fairness metrics and algorithms. We propose Counterfactual Explanation Consistency (CEC), a framework that detects and mitigates this bias by aligning feature attributions between individuals and their counterfactual counterparts. Key contributions include a nearest-neighbor counterfactual generation method, a modified baseline for integrated gradient comparisons, an individual-level procedural fairness metric, and a corresponding training loss. We introduce a taxonomy identifying Regime B'' (same outcome, different reasoning) as a critical blind spot. Experiments on synthetic data, German Credit, Adult Income, and HMDA mortgage data demonstrate that outcome-fair baselines exhibit substantial hidden bias, while CEC substantially reduces it with modest utility cost.