We view fairness as a property of distributional stability. Rather than assessing a predictor under a fixed data distribution, we study how its predictions change under perturbations that modify the composition of protected groups. A predictor is fair if it remains stable under such shifts. Under this perspective, several classical notions of fairness arise as stability with respect to specific perturbations, with the associated unfairness gap given by a Lipschitz constant of a prediction-rate functional. This formulation also yields guarantees that hold uniformly over a range of demographic compositions at test time, without requiring knowledge of the deployment distribution. It leads to a learning procedure based on convex combinations of reweighted predictors, formulated as a second-order cone program, for which we establish generalization bounds. Experiments on standard benchmarks illustrate the approach.
Figures & tables
Adult
COMPAS
Constraint
Model
U(h)↓
Deploy gap ↓
Accuracy ↑
U(h)↓
Deploy gap ↓
Accuracy ↑
DP
ERM
.180±.005
.122±.003
.845±.002
.132±.009
.079±.006
.680±.007
ERM+DP
.036±.006
.049±.006
.827±.002
.012±.006
.011±.004
.566±.019
PostProc
.013±.009
.097±.005
.823±.004
.038±.021
.044±.022
.555±.016
Shifty
.033±.021
.138±.032
.802±.010
.015±.012
.472±.039
.510±.007
STABLE
.011±.000
.006±.000∗
.753±.003
.012±.001
.006±.001∗
.680±.009∗
Table 1 : Results on the Adult Income and COMPAS datasets (mean ± std over 20 seeds). The deploy gap is supπ′∈{0,1}∣Φ(h;π′)−t∣ . Bold indicates the best value per column, constraint, and dataset. "*" indicates statistical significance when compared with the second-best result (underlined). Significance is assessed via paired Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. ERM is reported for reference only.
Figure 1 : Prediction rate Φ(h;π′) under demographic shift on the Adult Income and COMPAS datasets for DP and EO. Shaded regions show ± std of the curve shape over 20 random seeds.
Figure 2 : Geographic generalization on ACS Income. (left) Prediction rate Φ(h;πstate) as a function of the state proportion of White residents. Dashed lines show linear fits per method; (right) Accuracy vs. DP unfairness gap U(h) across held-out states. Each point corresponds to one state.
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
p1\πˉ
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.2
1.15
0.83
0.58
0.3
0.79
0.53
0.34
0.5
0.37
0.19
0.08
Appendix
Table 2 : Minimum DRO radius ε∗(πˉ) required to cover all demographic shifts π′∈[πˉ,1−πˉ] , for varying training group proportion p1 and perturbation lower bound πˉ .
ERM + constraint
STABLE (ours)
PostProc
Shifty
DP
EO
DP
EO
DP
EO
DP
EO
Adult
3.5±0.39
5.06±1.35
4.98±0.56
6.41±0.6
1.6±0.1
1.85±0.07
284.34±314.12
269.8±165.8
COMPAS
1.01±0.18
1.01±0.27
1.66±0.52
1.69±0.27
1.12±0.07
1.25±0.08
11.67±4.9
16.98±6.56
ACS
126.8±12
101.2±15.8
151.2±11.1
149.9±10.3
8.38±0.67
17.0±1.6
56.9±11.6
50.2±9.8
Appendix
Table 3 : Average training time per seed (seconds). All experiments run locally on an Apple M2, 16 GB RAM, macOS. Shifty uses Setting 2 (unknown demographic shift, α=0.25 ). NA stands for Not Applicable.
Figure 3 : Hyperparameter sensitivity on the Adult dataset (DP constraint, seed 0). Each cell reports the value of accuracy (left), U(h) (center) and deploy gap max(∣Φ(h;0)−t∣,∣Φ(h;1)−t∣) (right) as a function of threshold δ and the perturbation lower bound πˉ .
Adult
COMPAS
ACS Income
DP
EO
DP
EO
DP
EO
πˉ
0.02
0.15
0.02
0.15
0.02
0.15
δ
10−5
10−5
10−5
10−4
10−5
10−5
Appendix
Table 4 : Selected hyperparameters for STABLE. K=30 and m=60 are fixed across all settings. N.A. stands for Not Applicable.
Figure 4 : Geographic generalization on ACS Income. (left) Prediction rate Φ(h;πstate) as a function of the state proportion of White residents. Dashed lines show linear fits per method; (right) Accuracy vs. EO unfairness gap U(h) across held-out states. Each point corresponds to one state.
Ensuring fairness is essential as machine learning increasingly informs consequential decisions. However, many fairness-aware methods focus on the outputs of individual predictors, without directly controlling sensitive information retained in the underlying representations. We propose Deep Fair Learning (DFL), which combines distance covariance regularization with predictive loss to jointly learn representations and downstream predictors, promoting fairness at both levels while preserving task-relevant information. Its marginal and class-conditional formulations target independence and separation, respectively. Under suitable regularity conditions, we establish non-asymptotic joint excess-risk rates and convergence of the learned representation up to natural invariances. We further derive fairness-inheritance bounds linking representation-level dependence to downstream disparities over suitable predictor classes, extending fairness guarantees beyond the jointly trained predictor. Experiments on tabular, text, and image benchmarks show that DFL achieves lower fairness gaps than competing methods in many evaluated settings while maintaining competitive predictive accuracy, with fairness gains largely preserved after downstream retraining.
Enze Shi, Yiqun Xiao, Linglong Kong +1
Department of Mathematical and Statistical Science, University of Alberta.
In this paper, we establish a set of theoretical impossibility results, termed the No-Free-Fairness theorems, that identify three fundamental sources of disparity in learning systems. First, we show that when a task exhibits irreducible cost on a subgroup, any decision rule must trade off overall performance with disparity, yielding an inherent fairness--cost frontier. Second, we prove that even in ideal, noise-free settings where a perfectly fair and accurate solution exists, finite-sample learning alone induces nontrivial subgroup disparity, ruling out distribution-free fairness guarantees. More seriously, enforcing strict relative fairness creates a statistical bottleneck: achieving low cost may require exponentially many samples. Third, we show that limitations of the model class can independently induce disparity: if the model cannot represent accurate solutions for a subgroup, fairness remains unattainable regardless of data or training procedure. Overall, these results demonstrate that unfairness is not solely a consequence of biased data or suboptimal optimization, but arises from the intrinsic structure of decision problems, the constraints of finite data, and the expressivity of models. Our framework applies broadly beyond standard supervised learning, and suggests that achieving fairness requires explicit trade-offs and should be treated as a core design consideration.
In many fairness and distribution robustness problems, one has access to labeled data from multiple source distributions yet the test data may come from an arbitrary member or a mixture of them. We study the problem of constructing a conformal prediction set that is uniformly valid across multiple, heterogeneous distributions, in the sense that no matter which distribution the test point is from, the coverage of the prediction set is guaranteed to exceed a pre-specified level. We first propose a max-p aggregation scheme that delivers finite-sample, multi-distribution coverage given any conformity scores associated with each distribution. Upon studying several efficiency optimization programs subject to uniform coverage, we prove the optimality and tightness of our aggregation scheme, and propose a general algorithm to learn conformity scores that lead to efficient prediction sets after the aggregation under standard conditions. We discuss how our framework relates to group-wise distributionally robust optimization, sub-population shift, fairness, and multi-source learning. In synthetic and real-data experiments, our method delivers valid worst-case coverage across multiple distributions while greatly reducing the set size compared with naively applying max-p aggregation to single-source conformity scores, and can be comparable in size to single-source prediction sets with popular, standard conformity scores.
Yuqi Yang, Ying Jin
Mathematics Department, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, China · Department of Statistics and Data Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.