Link prediction (LP) plays a central role in graph-based applications, particularly in social recommendation. However, real-world graphs often reflect structural biases, most notably homophily, the tendency of nodes with similar attributes to connect. While this property can improve predictive performance, it also risks reinforcing existing social disparities. In response, fairness-aware LP methods have emerged, often seeking to mitigate these effects by promoting inter-group connections, that is, links between nodes with differing sensitive attributes (e.g., gender), following the principle of dyadic fairness. However, dyadic fairness overlooks potential disparities within the sensitive groups themselves. To overcome this issue, we propose k-hop fairness, a structural notion of fairness for LP, that assesses disparities conditioned on the distance between nodes in the graph. We formalize this notion through predictive fairness and structural bias metrics, and propose pre- and post-processing mitigation strategies. Experiments across standard LP benchmarks reveal: (1) a strong tendency of models to reproduce structural biases at different k-hops; (2) interdependence between structural biases at different hops when rewiring graphs; and (3) that our post-processing method achieves favorable k-hop performance-fairness trade-offs compared to existing fair LP baselines.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: In this example, nodes A and B are segregated within a cluster of blue nodes. While a dyadic view would produce likely inter-edges (typically between nodes with shared neighbors around node C), k -hop fairness allows specifying the order at which fairness is desired (here, k=3 ), enabling connections to the segregated part.
Figure 2: Comparison between graph structural bias and classical LP models k -hop fairness across meaningful hops.
Figure 3: Influence of NB(k) minimization via edge addition on structural bias at other hops. All p-values reported were found to be below 0.01, indicating statistical significance. The evolution of biases over iterations is shown in Supplementary E.2. For some target k , the optimization process did not identify edges that reduce bias, these cases were excluded from the analysis.
Figure 4: AUC vs NF(k) plot for base and fairness-aware GNN-based baselines and for targeted k values. Our post-processing results are shown through arrows from base models. The star marker denotes the hypothetical model achieving the best AUC and the best NF(k) across baselines. Only baselines with AUC >0.55 are displayed. The outcome of our post-processing approach on the base models are represented with an arrow. Figure (d) shows α effect in the post-processing method for SAGE predictions.
Appendix figures & tables22 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 5: Sensitive star graph with n=12 and p=32
Figure 6: Toy graphs (a), (b), (c) (left to right) with constant assortativity. Node colors represent sensitive attributes and the dotted lines represent different edge prediction sets according to color.
Toy Graph
a
NB(1)
NB(2)
NB(3)
(a)
∼n1
∼n21
∼n1
0
(b)
∼n1
∼21
∼n1
∼1
(c)
∼n1
∼41
∼21
∼21
Appendix
Table 1: Asymptotic assortativity and NB(k) for k∈{1,2,3} when n→∞ for the three presented toy graphs.
Metric
Polblogs
Facebook
Pokec
Citeseer
Synthetic
# Nodes
1,222
1,034
2,779
3,264
950
# Edges
16,714
26,749
22,650
4,536
9,496
% Sensitive nodes
48
15
34
33
32 / 16
Density
0.022
0.050
0.006
0.001
0.021
NB(1) Compute Time (s)
0.088
0.053
0.797
1.149
0.071
NB(2) Compute Time (s)
0.130
0.085
0.872
1.148
0.093
Appendix
Table 2: Compute time (in seconds) for different NB(k) across datasets and for k in meaningful hop set K , with recursive method. Compute time are averaged over 10 iterations.
Figure 7: Comparison between graph structural bias and classical LP models k -hop fairness across meaningful hops for Synthetic dataset.
Figure 8: Influence of NB(k) minimization via edge addition on structural bias at other hops for Synthetic dataset.
Figure 9: Evolution of structural bias across edge addition rewiring for several values of targeted k for Polblogs , Facebook and Synthetic datasets. Bias values are normalized (divided by original value) to increase readability.
Figure 10: Evolution of structural bias across edge addition rewiring for several values of targeted k for Pokec dataset. Bias values are normalized (divided by original value) to increase readability.
Figure 11: Evolution of structural bias across edge addition rewiring for several values of targeted k for Citeseer dataset. Bias values are normalized (divided by original value) to increase readability.
Dataset
k
ΔNF(k)
ΔAUC
ΔDP
ΔEO
Polblogs
1
-0.46 ± 0.01
0.00 ± 0.00
-0.00 ± 0.00
-0.00 ± 0.00
2
-0.25 ± 0.01
-0.28 ± 0.01
-0.07 ± 0.03
0.31 ± 0.04
4
-0.17 ± 0.01
-0.00 ± 0.00
0.05 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
Facebook
1
-0.07 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
-0.00 ± 0.00
2
-0.03 ± 0.00
-0.00 ± 0.00
0.02 ± 0.00
0.04 ± 0.00
6
-0.01 ± 0.01
0.00 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
-0.00 ± 0.00
Appendix
Table 3: Effects of our post-processing method on dyadic fairness metrics DP, EO, performance AUC and targeted k -hop metrics on GCN base model (average ± standard deviation).
Figure 12: AUC vs NF(k) plot for base and fairness-aware baselines and for targeted k values. Our post-processing results are shown through arrows from base models. The star marker denotes the hypothetical model achieving the best AUC and the best NF(k) across baselines. Only baselines with AUC >0.55 are displayed.
Figure 13: α effect on NF(k) and AUC in the post-processing method for SAGE predictions (log-scale for x-axis).
Figure 14: AUC vs NF(k) plot for base and fairness-aware baselines and for targeted k values. Our post-processing results are shown through arrows from base models. The star marker denotes the hypothetical model achieving the best AUC and the best NF(k) across baselines. Only baselines with AUC >0.55 are displayed.
Figure 15: α effect on NF(k) and AUC in the post-processing method for SAGE predictions (log-scale for x-axis).
Figure 16: AUC vs NF(k) plot for base and fairness-aware baselines and for targeted k values. Our post-processing results are shown through arrows from base models. The star marker denotes the hypothetical model achieving the best AUC and the best NF(k) across baselines. Only baselines with AUC >0.55 are displayed.
Figure 17: α effect on NF(k) and AUC in the post-processing method for SAGE predictions (log-scale for x-axis).
Figure 18: AUC vs NF(k) plot for base and fairness-aware baselines and for targeted k values. Our post-processing results are shown through arrows from base models. The star marker denotes the hypothetical model achieving the best AUC and the best NF(k) across baselines. Only baselines with AUC >0.55 are displayed.
Figure 19: α effect on NF(k) and AUC in the post-processing method for SAGE predictions (log-scale for x-axis).
Figure 20: AUC vs NF(k) plot for base and fairness-aware baselines and for targeted k values. Our post-processing results are shown through arrows from base models. The star marker denotes the hypothetical model achieving the best AUC and the best NF(k) across baselines. Only baselines with AUC >0.55 are displayed.
Figure 21: α effect on NF(k) and AUC in the post-processing method for SAGE predictions (log-scale for x-axis).
Dataset
Model
NF(1)
NF(2)
NF(3)
NF(4)
NF(5)
NF(6)
DP
EO
AUC
Polblogs
N2V
0.62 ± 0.01
0.35 ± 0.01
0.07 ± 0.01
0.05 ± 0.01
0.07 ± 0.04
0.08 ± 0.06
0.35 ± 0.02
0.26 ± 0.02
0.76 ± 0.01
GCN
0.56 ± 0.01
0.29 ± 0.01
0.12 ± 0.01
0.22 ± 0.01
0.12 ± 0.06
0.12 ± 0.08
0.20 ± 0.02
0.09 ± 0.03
0.89 ± 0.00
SAGE
0.55 ± 0.02
0.29 ± 0.03
0.11 ± 0.03
0.19 ± 0.02
0.12 ± 0.05
0.06 ± 0.04
0.18 ± 0.05
0.06 ± 0.04
0.84 ± 0.01
CrossWalk
0.52 ± 0.01
0.29 ± 0.01
0.07 ± 0.01
0.18 ± 0.01
0.06 ± 0.01
0.12 ± 0.05
0.13 ± 0.01
0.11 ± 0.01
0.68 ± 0.01
DeBayes
0.56 ± 0.00
0.41 ± 0.00
0.11 ± 0.00
0.04 ± 0.01
0.07 ± 0.06
0.10 ± 0.11
0.42 ± 0.01
0.33 ± 0.01
0.73 ± 0.00
EDITS
0.77 ± 0.01
0.47 ± 0.00
0.30 ± 0.00
0.39 ± 0.00
0.09 ± 0.00
0.16 ± 0.01
0.06 ± 0.00
0.01 ± 0.01
0.66 ± 0.01
Appendix
Table 4: Comparison of model performance on Polblogs , Facebook , and Pokec datasets, highlighting best scores. For our methods, we report only the post-processing variant applied to the LP model yielding the best results. Presented scores are averaged over 10 iterations with different train/test split random seeds, standard deviation being displayed next to averaged values.
Dataset
Model
NF(1)
NF(2)
NF(3)
NF(4)
NF(5)
NF(6)
DP
EO
AUC
Citeseer
N2V
0.50 ± 0.01
0.39 ± 0.01
0.28 ± 0.02
0.18 ± 0.02
0.10 ± 0.02
0.05 ± 0.01
0.17 ± 0.03
0.08 ± 0.05
0.74 ± 0.02
GCN
0.50 ± 0.01
0.35 ± 0.01
0.24 ± 0.00
0.19 ± 0.00
0.14 ± 0.00
0.10 ± 0.00
0.05 ± 0.01
0.04 ± 0.03
0.63 ± 0.01
SAGE
0.52 ± 0.01
0.38 ± 0.01
0.25 ± 0.01
0.19 ± 0.00
0.15 ± 0.00
0.10 ± 0.00
0.06 ± 0.01
0.05 ± 0.02
0.60 ± 0.02
CrossWalk
0.30 ± 0.00
0.26 ± 0.00
0.22 ± 0.00
0.18 ± 0.00
0.14 ± 0.00
0.10 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
0.52 ± 0.02
DeBayes
0.49 ± 0.01
0.40 ± 0.01
0.32 ± 0.01
0.24 ± 0.01
0.17 ± 0.02
0.11 ± 0.01
0.19 ± 0.02
0.13 ± 0.04
0.79 ± 0.01
EDITS
0.31 ± 0.00
0.27 ± 0.00
0.23 ± 0.00
0.19 ± 0.00
0.15 ± 0.00
0.10 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
0.01 ± 0.01
0.49 ± 0.01
Appendix
Table 5: Comparison of model performance on Citeseer , and Synthetic datasets, highlighting best scores. For our methods, we report only the post-processing variant applied to the LP model yielding the best results. Presented scores are averaged over 10 iterations with different train/test split random seeds, standard deviation being displayed next to averaged values.
In fair ranked link prediction, demographic parity (ΔDP) is a common fairness metric. Yet, Mattos et al. (2025) argue that it fails to detect exposure bias because it ignores where links appear in the ranking. In this study, we reproduce this claim by showing that ΔDP can indicate aggregate parity even when some subgroup-pair links are systematically ranked lower than others. The proposed rank-aware Normalized Discounted KL-divergence (NDKL), however, does detect such disparities. We also reproduce the effectiveness of MORAL, a post-processing method that improves exposure-based fairness while maintaining competitive utility. Beyond reproduction, we assess robustness using synthetic homophily settings, categorical sensitive attributes, and additional fairness and utility metrics, including subgroup-pair-adapted Attention-Weighted Rank Fairness (AWRF). Overall, our results show that exposure-based metrics uncover biases hidden by ΔDP and that MORAL reduces these biases with minimal utility loss across diverse settings and datasets. We release a corrected, reproducible implementation at https://github.com/Floris93100/reproducing-MORAL.
Valentijn Oldenburg, Floris de Kam, Stef de Wildt +1
Graph neural networks (GNNs) are the standard tool for node representation learning and are increasingly used in high-stakes settings. Their message-passing backbone, however, can amplify topological bias, raising fairness concerns. We study group fairness at the level of downstream predictions for node classification, link prediction, and node regression, and bound the demographic parity gap for an arbitrary number of sensitive groups. Our node classification bound is provably no looser than the closest prior result. For link prediction, ours is the first bound on the parity gap of the deployed sigmoid-activated prediction rather than a pre-activation proxy, and for node regression we provide the first such bound. Across all three tasks, the analysis identifies two distinct sources of bias: the separation between group means and the within-group covariance of the final representations. Building on this insight, we embed fairness into propagation itself by augmenting the convex smoothing problem underlying APPNP with a convex group-mean constraint and a within-group covariance regularizer. Unfolding projected gradient descent on this problem yields FairProp, whose layers pair a propagation step with a closed-form projection and which provably converges linearly to the unique fair optimum. Experiments on three tasks show that FairProp, even with exact group-mean equalization alone, provides a strong inductive bias that achieves excellent fairness-utility trade-offs against strong baselines.
Emmanouil Kariotakis, Aritra Konar
Department of Electrical Engineering (ESAT-STADIUS), KU Leuven, Belgium
In this paper, a methodology to design fair graph convolutional neural networks (GCNs) is developed and tested over several application data sets. The graphs that are used as inputs to the network are constructed by a k-nearest neighbor-based preprocessing procedure, while fairness issues are considered in terms of the equalized odds criterion. To effectively incorporate the above heterogenous information, the equalized odds criterion is directly embedded into the model's optimization objective through an additional fairness-driven loss functional term. The proposed methodology investigates how varying the neighborhood size in the k-NN algorithm during graph construction influences both the classification performance and the fairness of the resulting models. Extensive experimentation is conducted on three real-world tabular datasets with known biases, evaluating the interplay between graph structure and fairness enforcement. The results demonstrate that the choice of the value of the parameter k critically impacts the performance trends, either steadily improving or peaking at intermediate values depending on dataset characteristics, while the application of fairness constraints significantly mitigates disparities in false positive and false negative rates across groups defined by the protected variable at hand, without incurring major sacrifices in overall accuracy. This study highlights the importance of jointly optimizing the graph construction process and fairness objectives in GCN-based learning, providing a systematic approach toward building more equitable and effective graph-based models.
Nikolaos Zafeiropoulos, Emmanouil Mavrikos, George E. Tsekouras
Department of Cultural Technology and Communication University of the Aegean Mytilene, Greece