Portable Causal Fairness Across Synthetic Data Generator Families

Synthetic tabular data is increasingly used in privacy-preserving data sharing, data augmentation, and to mitigate downstream classifier bias. State-of-the-art tabular diffusion models such as TabDDPM and TabSyn achieve excellent distributional fidelity but offer no mechanism for fairness; conversely, fairness-aware tabular generators (DECAF, FairTGAN, FairTabDDPM) impose explicit fairness penalties at training time, yielding modest fairness gains at substantial cost to either sample quality or downstream utility. We introduce FairDiffuseVQVAE, a two-stage architecture that decouples fidelity from fairness: a vector-quantized autoencoder with a row-level discriminator (Stage1, no fairness terms) is followed by a DiffuseVAE-style continuous diffusion refiner that conditions on both the Stage-1 reconstruction and the protected attribute via classifier-free guidance (Stage2). Fairness emerges as a property of the sampling distribution -- uniform sampling of the protected attribute at inference time enforces demographic parity by construction, rather than from competing loss terms. On the Adult, Bank and COMPAS datasets, FairDiffuseVQVAE achieves the highest mean Demographic Parity Ratio ($0.702$, $+47\%$ over FairTabDDPM) and Equalized Odds Ratio ($0.686$, $+100\%$). It also attains the lowest mean pair-wise correlation error ($0.034$) of any published method, while explicitly trading \sim$$15 AUC points for these fairness gains.

Machine learning models are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains, raising concerns about both privacy and fairness. Differential Privacy (DP) has become a gold standard for privacy-preserving data analysis, while fairness-aware mechanisms aim to mitigate discrimination against underrepresented groups. However, these objectives can conflict: DP often amplifies disparities across demographic groups, and little is known about whether established fairness interventions remain effective under DP constraints. In this work, we present, to our knowledge, the first systematic evaluation of fairness interventions on differentially private synthetic tabular data. Our benchmark centers on the Adaptive Iterative Mechanism (AIM), identified as the state-of-the-art marginal-based DP synthesizer (Cormode et al. 2025). We thus evaluate fairness interventions across four datasets, multiple group fairness metrics, and three categories of mitigation strategies (pre-processing, in-processing, and post-processing) under a wide range of privacy budgets. We compare four pipeline configurations: (Baseline) training on original data; (DP-only) training on DP synthetic data; (Fair-only) applying fairness mechanisms on original data; and (DP+Fair) combining fairness mechanisms with DP synthetic data. Our results demonstrate that while DP alone can degrade both utility and fairness, applying fairness interventions can partially restore equitable outcomes. Among them, post-processing methods tend to provide more stable fairness-utility trade-offs across privacy budgets and synthesizers, achieving strong fairness improvements while preserving competitive utility relative to other intervention stages. We release all code, data, and experimental artifacts in an open-source repository to ensure full reproducibility and to support future research on the privacy-fairness-utility trade-off.

We revisit the fairness notion of disparate impact for synthetic data generation (SDG), that assesses whether the utility of generated records is the same across sensitive groups. Our approach departs from existing work on fair SDG, that address the problem of correcting for undue biases in the observed distribution, hence redefining SDG as learning a distribution that is not that of the real data. By contrast, non-disparate impact is notably achieved when the synthetic and real distributions are the same. We expose reasons why SDG may fail to reach that solution and discuss why approximation and estimation errors occur and can be disparate across groups. We notably look into the expressive power of SDG methods relative to distribution complexity, sampling errors due to group proportions, and estimation errors induced by differential privacy mechanisms. We illustrate cases of disparate impact on both artificial and real-world data, focusing on SDG methods that rely on probabilistic graphical models. We also introduce a strategy of learning group-wise SDG models, that constitutes a simple baseline for analyzing and in some settings mitigating cases of disparate impact.