Separation-Utility Pareto Frontier: An Information-Theoretic Characterization

When sensitive attributes are continuous and high-dimensional $-$ demographic score vectors, posteriors over attributes, age or income profiles $-$ enforcing full statistical independence is often too restrictive, and existing relaxations rely on indirect dependence penalties or adversarial schemes that do not directly target the fairness-accuracy trade-off. We instead consider mean demographic parity through DPVar, the variance of the conditional-mean prediction given the sensitive attribute, and show that optimizing it yields a functional bilevel problem. We propose two algorithms for this problem: FBO, which uses a closed-form adjoint we derive for the squared-loss case to obtain an exact hypergradient, and ITD, which differentiates through unrolled inner steps and extends beyond squared loss. On synthetic data and a new semi-synthetic benchmark built from 60 tabular regression datasets, both methods achieve the lowest or near-lowest aggregate fairness-accuracy regret, and consistently match or outperform strong HSIC, adversarial, linear-dependence, and generalized-DP baselines.

Many fairness criteria constrain the policy or choice of predictors, which can have unwanted consequences, in particular, when optimizing the policy under such constraints. Here, we in- stead suggest that fairness can be directly analyzed as a property of the utility function. Instead of imposing fairness constraints on the policy, we suggest to simply maximize a utility function satisfying certain fairness properties. Concretely, we define value of information fairness, which prescribes that there must not be an incentive to infer the protected attribute. This principle sug- gests modifying utility functions such that they satisfy value of information fairness. We describe how such modifications can be achieved and discuss consequences for the corresponding optimal policies. We apply our framework to thought experiments and the COMPAS data, demonstrating that focusing on utility functions sometimes provides answers that better align with intuitive judg- ments about what is fair. Moreover, we are not aware of any intuitively fair policy that violates value of information fairness; and when we find that value of information fairness recommends an intuitively unfair policy, no realizable policy is intuitively fair.

Differential privacy (DP) is increasingly deployed to limit membership inference risk in machine-learning systems. Prior work has shown that DP-SGD can widen accuracy disparities across demographic groups, but this framing treats fairness as a purely outcome-side concern. We argue that privacy cost, the information leakage borne by each group, is itself a form of harm, and adopt a compensatory-fairness framework in which a group that involuntarily bears greater privacy exposure is owed proportionally greater benefit from the system. From this principle we derive the \emph{Privacy-Cost Equity Ratio} (PCER), a group fairness metric defined as a group's positive prediction rate normalized by its per-group overfitting gap. By a standard membership inference bound, this overfitting gap upper-bounds each group's vulnerability to inference attacks, making PCER a conservative measure of benefit relative to exposure. PCER needs only per-group train and test accuracy (no shadow models), making it a practical post-hoc audit tool. We evaluate PCER alongside standard fairness metrics across six benchmark--attribute combinations spanning tabular and NLP domains, under DP-SGD at a range of privacy budgets, and validate the overfitting-gap proxy against a direct threshold membership-inference attack. The results reveal patterns that outcome-based metrics miss. On COMPAS, PCER uncovers a persistent double disadvantage: the protected group bears both greater privacy exposure and worse predictive outcomes, something demographic parity gap masks entirely. Sensitivity analysis shows very strong privacy guarantees collapse both groups' overfitting to a numerical floor, rendering exposure-based audits uninformative in that regime. Together, these findings show that fairness audits of privacy-preserving systems must account for who bears the cost of protection, not only who benefits from its outcomes.