Algorithmic Fairness

Federated learning is an emerging distributed paradigm that addresses the challenges posed by heterogeneous, privacy-sensitive data. It enables multiple clients to train a model collaboratively by aggregating their local updates at a server. However, conventional aggregation schemes typically use fixed weights that fail to reflect unequal and time-varying client contributions, leading to biased and unstable learning. To improve fairness and stability, we propose the Trajectory Shapley Value (TSV), a contribution metric that evaluates how each client influences the optimization trajectory of the global model using a validation-based, temporally consistent utility. Building on TSV, we design FedTSV, an adaptive aggregation method that converts per-round evaluations into dynamic client weights, allowing the server to respond to heterogeneous and adversarial participation in real time. Experiments on benchmark datasets show that FedTSV accelerates convergence, improves robustness, and yields more equitable contribution assessments, thereby providing a principled foundation for fairness-aware federated optimization.

Medical image analysis models can exhibit performance disparities across patient subgroups, threatening clinical safety and fairness. Existing methods typically address this issue by optimizing accuracy and fairness metrics for visible demographic attributes (e.g., sex or age) considered in isolation. This strategy not only overlooks potentially more informative latent stratifications, which may reveal deeper sources of model error and inequity, but also fails to scale when multiple demographic attributes are considered simultaneously due to the resulting sparsity of training data within each subgroup. We deal with these issues by introducing the label-free hidden-cohort fairness (LHCF) training paradigm that instead of maximizing fairness over visible demographic attributes, it optimizes fairness across latent subpopulations discovered from image appearance. By clustering images into K appearance-based cohorts and applying fairness optimization over them, LHCF uncovers underlying sources of model error and avoids the combinatorial sparsity of multi-demographic attributes, reducing disparities across both single and multiple demographic attributes. We demonstrate on our proposed fairness benchmark, HIDFairBench, that LHCF provides state-of-the-art fairness results on single and multiple demographic attributes, despite never using demographic labels for training. Our results position hidden-cohort fairness as a practical, scalable, and robust alternative to demographic-based fairness optimization for trustworthy medical image analysis.

Hybrid interpretable models combine a transparent component with a black-box model by assigning some examples to the former and deferring the rest to the latter. While this design enables flexible tradeoffs between accuracy and interpretability, it also raises a distinct procedural fairness concern: some demographic groups may systematically receive interpretable decisions, while others are disproportionately routed to a black box. We formalize this issue as Interpretability Coverage Disparity (ICD), a demographic-parity-style measure applied to the routing decision of hybrid interpretable models. Using tools from predictive multiplicity, we study ICD across four hybrid interpretable learning methods, three standard fairness benchmark datasets, and multiple sensitive attributes. Our experiments reveal substantial ICD in intermediate transparency regimes, where both the interpretable and black-box components are actively used. We further show that simple coverage-disparity constraints can significantly reduce ICD in exact hybrid learning methods, with marginal impact on accuracy and sparsity. In several settings, ICD mitigation also improves standard algorithmic fairness metrics. These results show that hybrid interpretable models should be audited not only for predictive fairness, but also for how they allocate interpretability across individuals and groups.

We consider the problem of learning a counterfactually fair regressor. We adopt a causal uncertainty view in which counterfactual fairness is defined with resampled noise. We focus on obtaining theoretical fairness guarantees for a new post-processing estimator. We begin by showing that counterfactual fairness is equivalent to satisfying demographic parity conditional on the latent variable. This allows us to provide a closed-form expression of the optimal fair regressor via a barycentric quantile map. In order to handle continuous latent variables, we propose a discretized post-processing method. Then, under mild regularity assumptions, we prove high-probability finite-sample fairness guarantees for our estimator, providing an unfairness decay at rate $\tilde O(n^{-1/3})$, and establishing a matching risk bound of order $\tilde O(n^{-1/3})$. We provide a matching lower bound on the excess risk of almost fair predictions. Finally, we extend our results to the setting of relaxed counterfactual fairness. We validate our approach on real-world and synthetic data.

Fairness-accuracy trade-offs are a central concern in the deployment of fairness-aware machine learning methods. When sensitive attributes are unavailable at inference time-the so called unawareness setting, principled methods for obtaining accurate predictions under relaxed fairness constraints are largely missing. In this work, we address this gap by formulating regression under a demographic parity penalty as an optimal transport problem. Our framework unifies both the \emph{aware} and \emph{unaware} settings and characterizes optimal prediction functions via optimal transport maps, under both squared Wasserstein-2 and Total Variation penalties. These results reveal that the choice of penalty reflects fundamentally different fairness philosophies: the Wasserstein penalty induces a smooth, population-wide compromise, while Total Variation enforces exact parity for a subset of individuals. Building on these theoretical characterizations, we propose an algorithm that is simple to implement, computationally efficient, and consistently matches or outperforms state-of-the-art baselines on real-world benchmarks.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated promising capability in generating reward functions for deep reinforcement learning (DRL)-based building energy management. However, their potential to exhibit or exacerbate disparities in occupant comfort across heterogeneous demographic populations remains unexplored. We present OccuReward, a framework investigating how LLM-mediated reward design affects demographic equity. Our contribution is three-fold: the introduction of the Comfort Equity Index (CEI) as a novel feedback signal; a methodology for iterative, equity-aware LLM reward shaping; and a performance analysis of DRL agents under these refined objectives. Utilizing four empirically grounded occupant profiles from the ASHRAE Global Thermal Comfort Database II (13,440 votes), we deploy a Soft Actor-Critic agent in CityLearn v2. Our approach employs the Gemini API to generate reward function logic and weights--rather than performing per-step inference--across three refinement rounds. Results across 15 experimental runs reveal that elderly female occupants consistently experience the lowest satisfaction in initial rounds. By Round 3, equity-aware LLM refinement activates specific reward components that improve satisfaction for Young Males (+17.6%), Mid-aged Females (+28.2%), Health Sensitive (+53.8%), and Elderly Females (+567%), while simultaneously reducing energy costs by 3.2%. Our findings highlight that while reward-level intervention significantly improves equity, demographic disparities in AI-driven controllers persist, necessitating further research into algorithmic fairness in building systems.

Multi-agent systems are increasingly deployed to support various tasks where agents interact to achieve individual and collective objectives. Although these systems can enhance task performance and decision-making, fairness preservation through bias reduction remains challenging. This study examines how agent-level biases shift and impact system-wide fairness. We use prompts to expose individual agents to group-favoring bias, then assess downstream impacts at the system level. To quantify the impact, we propose Favor Bias Strength (FBS), a zero-centered metric that decomposes bias alteration between favored-group uplift and disfavored-group suppression. Using multiple agent designs, benchmarks, and up-to-date large language models, we show that agents endowed with bias can substantially affect system-wide fairness. Interestingly, when agents are exposed to bias uniformly, the system-wide bias elevates, even exceeding the additive sum of the individual agents' biases. The empirical evidence underscores the criticality of fairness in multi-agent systems, which warrants further analyses and empirical tests.

Diffusion models steer conditional generation with a tunable guidance scale to trade off prompt alignment and diversity. However, existing debiasing techniques are optimized for a single scale, degrading fairness when users adjust this parameter. We trace this behavior to a previously overlooked source by decomposing total bias into two components: a model bias and a guidance bias. While prior work primarily targets the former, we show that the guidance bias grows monotonically with the guidance scale, eventually dominating the high-guidance regimes users prefer. To address this, we extend Strong Demographic Parity to guidance and derive a condition under which the target distribution retains its group ratio across guidance scales. We propose StayFair, which leverages this condition to design fair guidance algorithms in both regimes. For classifier guidance, it equalizes the classifier's output distributions across groups; for classifier-free guidance, it shifts the null embedding by a prompt-dependent offset. Because StayFair modifies only the guidance step, it is orthogonal to model debiasing and can be layered onto existing fair diffusion models to extend their fairness across guidance scales. Across class-conditional and text-to-image generation, StayFair decouples fairness from the guidance scale without sacrificing image quality.

AI governance frameworks increasingly emphasize fairness, transparency, accountability, and lifecycle risk management in high-stakes domains. However, many current approaches remain observational, relying on static metric reporting, post-hoc auditing, and monitoring dashboards without directly governing deployment readiness, remediation progression, escalation states, or assurance-driven deployment control. This paper introduces Operational AI Deployment Assurance (OADA), a governance framework for translating fairness disagreement, subgroup instability, threshold sensitivity, remediation outcomes, and operational uncertainty into deployment-oriented assurance decisions. Building on prior work on the Fairness Disagreement Index (FDI) and FairRisk-FDI, OADA reframes governance uncertainty as an operational concern within AI deployment pipelines rather than a byproduct of metric disagreement. The framework introduces Deployment Assurance Scores, Deployment Readiness Classifications, Threshold Stability Zones, Governance Escalation States, and remediation-aware assurance progression. These constructs support lifecycle-oriented governance decisions across high-stakes settings by connecting evaluation outputs to deployment-state interpretation, reassessment, escalation, and operational control. Through deployment-oriented evaluation across facial recognition systems, with discussion extended to healthcare AI as a representative high-stakes domain, the paper demonstrates how systems may appear acceptable under isolated fairness or performance metrics while still exhibiting instability that affects deployment readiness. The proposed framework positions operational deployment assurance as a governance layer between evaluation and real-world AI deployment.

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.

Many employers screen job applicants with algorithms built by the same few algorithm vendors. We hypothesize that algorithmic monoculture leads to the same individuals and members of the same racial groups facing rejection. We acquire and analyze a novel dataset of 3 million applicants submitting 4 million applications where all the applications are screened by algorithms built by the same vendor. We find clear racial disparities in applicant outcomes. Of all applications submitted by Asian and Black applicants, 14.74% and 25.87% are submitted to positions that adversely impact Asian and Black applicants, respectively, according to U.S. employment discrimination standards. Individuals also receive homogeneous outcomes: 4% of all applicants who apply to 10 positions are recommended for rejection from all positions, a rate higher than expected by chance. To better understand this homogeneity, we leverage the deterministic replicability of hiring algorithms to generate the outcomes applicants would have received if they applied to all positions. We show that applicants would need to apply widely in order to ensure their applications are considered by a human

Concerns about algorithmic bias and fairness have increased as artificial intelligence has been incorporated into high-stakes decision-making. Traditional Naive Bayes classifiers, while efficient and interpretable, lack fairness-awareness mechanisms and perpetuate historical biases in sensitive domains such as hiring, credit scoring, and criminal justice. This study develops a fairness-aware extension of the Naive Bayes classifier that mitigates bias while maintaining computational efficiency. We propose the Bias Mitigating Naive Bayes (BMNB) classifier, integrating in-processing and post-processing interventions. The in-processing stage employs a blended likelihood approach combining group-specific and pooled likelihood estimates through a tunable blending parameter alpha to balance fairness and accuracy. The post-processing stage applies output calibration with adaptive thresholding to fine-tune group-specific decision boundaries. Experimental results indicate that BMNB attains Disparate Impact (DI) values of 1.000, 1.171, and 0.997 and Equal Opportunity Difference (EOD) values of -0.217, -0.226, and -0.053 on the Adult, ProPublica, and Framingham datasets, respectively, while maintaining computational efficiency. Ablation studies confirm that the combination of blended likelihood and adaptive thresholding yields superior performance compared to either technique in isolation.

Runtime fairness is not a one-time constraint but a dynamic property evaluated over a sequence of decisions. To ensure fairness at runtime, it is necessary to account for past decisions, information neglected by conventional, static classifiers. Traditional fairness shields enforce runtime fairness abruptly, by intervening \emph{deterministically} whenever a sequence of decisions violates the target for a running fairness measure. This motivates our \emph{main conceptual contribution: \textbf{energy shields}.} An energy shield is a novel, lightweight, adaptive controller that monitors a sequence of decisions and intervenes \emph{probabilistically} to ensure runtime fairness smoothly, by utilizing physics-inspired energy functions to nudge the sequence toward fairness: the more unfair the decisions, the stronger the nudging force becomes. This makes energy shields the \emph{\textbf{first}} fairness shields to provide both \emph{short-term safety and long-term liveness guarantees}. Safety ensures that the running fairness measure stays within a running target interval with high probability, and liveness ensures that the limit of the fairness measure lies within the limit target interval. Intuitively, the short-term specifies the tolerated fairness values and the long-term specifies the desired fairness values. We also provide a synthesis procedure for constructing the least intrusive energy shield for a given target specification, and demonstrate its efficiency experimentally. We evaluate our energy shields against existing fairness shields through the lens of short- and long-term fairness.

Text-to-Image (T2I) models have made significant strides in visual realism and semantic consistency, yet they often perpetuate and amplify societal biases. Existing evaluation methods typically address only single-dimensional biases, lacking perspectives to uncover model biases at social-related deeper semantic levels. We introduce HoloFair, a comprehensive benchmark framework for multidimensional demographic bias analysis. Built upon our large-scale fairness-oriented dataset and the SpaFreq (Spatial-Frequency) attribute classifier, this framework proposes the Multi-attribute, Group-wise Bias Index (MGBI) metric, designed to assess both intrinsic diversity and conditional biases. Beyond evaluation, we further introduce Fair-GRPO, a reinforcement-learning-based debiasing method that alters the distribution of generative models through a designed multi-objective reward function. E.g., experiments on the SD3.5-Medium model demonstrate that Fair-GRPO significantly improves multidimensional fairness while maintaining high image quality. We also analyze potential reward hacking phenomena and provide corresponding mitigation strategies. Code and dataset are available at https://github.com/1059684669/HoloFair

The integration of fairness and privacy in centralized data-driven applications is critical, especially as these systems increasingly influence sectors with significant societal impact. Current methods rarely address privacy, fairness, and accuracy together, which can potentially compromise ethical standards and privacy regulations. However, balancing these three objectives is quite challenging since each of objective often imposes conflicting requirements on the design and training of models, making it difficult to optimize one without compromising the others. This paper introduces a novel multitask adversarial model that treats fairness and privacy as integral objectives rather than afterthoughts, and learns a latent representation that hides sensitive attributes while preserving essential task-related information. Our approach dynamically balances fairness with accuracy and privacy through an optimized cost function with minimal performance loss even under strict conditions. Extensive testing on diverse datasets shows the ability of our model to achieve high standards of fairness and privacy without significant sacrifice to accuracy. Benchmarking against state-of-the-art privacy and fairness standards shows that our method enhances the robustness of privacy, fairness, and accuracy optimization, proving its adaptability across various datasets.

Language models (LMs) can exhibit biases based on variations in their dialects, even in the absence of a dialect label, a behavior known as covert dialect bias. In this work, we quantify covert dialect bias in online discourse by evaluating how LMs associate stereotypical traits (derived from social psychology research on racial bias) with intent-equivalent tweets in Standard American English (SAE) and African-American Vernacular English (AAVE). While prior work shows that LMs associate more negative stereotypes with AAVE when evaluating tweets in isolation, we are surprised to find that this bias is significantly exacerbated when SAE / AAVE tweet pairs are compared side by side, a setting that more closely reflects high-impact decision making contexts in which models are used to rank candidates. The bias only worsens when dialect labels are explicitly specified. This is striking, given the extensive efforts from commercial developers to mitigate bias in their LMs. Encouragingly, we show that counterfactual fairness finetuning can mitigate covert dialect bias for some stereotypical traits, reducing average disparities when evaluating tweets in isolation, however, these improvements do not consistently hold across traits when evaluating SAE / AAVE tweets side by side. Our findings show that existing evaluation settings for covert dialect bias may underestimate its severity, specifically in contrastive settings. Additionally, overt dialect bias remains pronounced even after safety aligned finetuning, indicating that it remains an unresolved problem, and motivates the need for more robust evaluation and mitigation frameworks.

While social media platforms, such as Twitter, provide a medium for large-scale opinion sharing during news events, it is manually impossible for individuals or media agencies to process the vast volume of content to identify key viewpoints. In order to resolve this, several automatic summarization techniques have been proposed to condense large collections of tweets into concise and informative summaries. However, these algorithms do not explicitly consider demographic fairness. Several existing research works have developed automated summarization approaches that can provide a holistic overview of the key aspects and major opinions shared on social media platforms related to a news event. However, these approaches do not explicitly consider different forms of demographic representation, such as gender, which can lead to biased summary representation. In this paper, we propose EquiSumm, which considers the gender aspect of the shared opinion to generate a summary, and our experimental analysis on two major datasets indicates the performance effectiveness with respect to existing research works.

Individual fairness, the notion that "similar individuals should be treated similarly," provides a strong and flexible fairness guarantee for algorithmic decision makers. However, a barrier to implementing individual fairness in practice is the difficulty of learning the similarity metric over individuals. In this work, we present an algorithm for learning a Mahalanobis similarity metric from triplet queries of the form "is individual $i$ more similar to individual $j$ or $k$?" We work in the standard Bradley-Terry model for pairwise comparisons. Our algorithm consists of a spectral initialization step followed by gradient descent. We provide extensive theoretical guarantees on our algorithm, showing that it converges quickly to the ground truth metric despite the non-convexity of the loss in our model. Because our focus is on fairness, we also show that individual fairness with respect to an estimated metric is sufficient to achieve similar fairness with respect to the true metric. We also discuss potential applications of our work to AI model tuning. Finally, we present experimental results that demonstrate the convergence of our algorithm and the fairness performance of downstream fair predictors trained on our estimated metric.

Long-term fairness algorithms aim to satisfy fairness beyond static and short-term notions by accounting for the dynamics between decision-making policies and population behavior. Most previous approaches evaluate performance and fairness measures from observable features and a label, which is assumed to be fully observed. However, in scenarios such as hiring or lending, the labels (e.g., ability to repay the loan) are selective labels as they are only revealed based on positive decisions (e.g., when a loan is granted). In this paper, we study long-term fairness in the selective labels setting and analytically show that naive solutions do not guarantee fairness. To address this gap, we then introduce a novel framework that leverages both the observed data and a label predictor model to estimate the true fairness measure value by decomposing it into the observed fairness and bias from label predictions. This allows us to derive sufficient conditions to satisfy true fairness from observable quantities by using the confidence in the predictor model. Finally, we rely on our theoretical results to propose a novel reinforcement learning algorithm for effective long-term fair decision-making with selective labels. In semisynthetic environments, the proposed algorithm reached comparable fairness and performance to an agent with oracle access to the true labels.

Statistical decision algorithms are increasingly deployed in domains where ground-truth labels are hard to obtain, such as hiring, university admissions, and content moderation. In these settings, models are typically trained on historical human evaluations -- for example, using past hiring decisions as a proxy for true applicant quality. However, if past evaluations unjustly favor certain groups, models trained on these labels may inherit those biases. To address this problem, we propose basing predictions on rubric embeddings, a representation framework that replaces standard black-box embeddings with features derived from expert-defined criteria that align with the underlying construct of interest. By anchoring predictions to semantically meaningful dimensions, this approach guards against biased proxy signals. We provide both theoretical and empirical evidence that rubric embeddings mitigate label bias under plausible conditions. Empirically, we evaluate our method on a novel dataset of applications to a large master's program. We find that models trained on rubric embeddings reduce group disparities while improving measures of cohort quality. Our results suggest that basing predictions on interpretable, domain-grounded representations offers a practical approach to learning in the presence of biased labels.

Competitive selection processes, from scientific funding to admissions and hiring, use evaluations to score candidates, and eventually choose a subset of them based on those scores. Recently, many organizations have adopted partial lotteries, which randomize selection based on evaluation scores. However, existing lottery designs are inherently unstable, as a small change to a single candidate's score can cause large shifts in their selection probabilities. This instability undermines a key goal of lotteries: reducing the influence of fine-grained score distinctions near the decision boundary. We propose smoothness as a design principle for partial lotteries, formalizing it as a Lipschitz condition on the mapping from review scores over candidates to selection probabilities. We introduce the Clipped Linear Lottery, a simple mechanism in which selection probabilities scale linearly with estimated quality between an upper threshold, above which we always accept, and a lower threshold, below which we always reject. We prove that the Clipped Linear Lottery's worst-case regret matches a lower bound for any smooth selection rule up to a factor of $(1 - k/n)$, where $k/n$ is the acceptance rate. We compare smooth selection to other stability notions like Individual Fairness and Differential Privacy, showing that the Clipped Linear Lottery achieves a better smoothness-regret tradeoff than alternatives. Experiments on real peer review data from ICLR 2025, NeurIPS 2024, and the Swiss National Science Foundation demonstrate that existing lottery designs are highly unstable in practice even under perturbations to a single score. Our experiments also confirm the tightness of our theoretical analysis and show that our proposed Clipped Linear Lottery achieves a better smoothness-utility tradeoff than alternatives in practice.

Deep neural networks (DNNs) are suffering from ethical issues such as individual discrimination. In response, extensive NN repair techniques have been developed to adjust models and mitigate such undesired behaviors. However, existing fairness repair methods are typically data-centric, which often lack provable guarantees and generalization to unseen samples. To overcome these limitations, we propose ProF, a novel fairness repair framework with provable guarantees. The key intuition of ProF is to leverage interval bound propagation (a widely used NN verification technique) to soundly capture model outputs over the whole set $S(\mathbf{x})$ around a biased sample $\mathbf{x}$. The derived bounds are utilized to guide fairness repair which encourages the model to produce consistent outputs on $S(\mathbf{x})$. Specifically, we integrate fairness constraints and model modifications into a unified constraint-solving formulation, which can be transformed to a Mixed-Integer Linear Programming (MILP) problem solvable by off-the-shelf solvers. The solution to the MILP problem effectively induces a repaired model with guaranteed fairness over the whole set $S(\mathbf{x})$. We evaluate ProF on four widely used benchmark datasets and demonstrate that it achieves provable fairness repair, with generalization of up to 95.93% on full datasets and 93.16% on the entire input space. Notably, ProF can be easily configured to support multiple sensitive attributes and more practical fairness definitions, while providing provable repair guarantees and delivering around 90% fairness improvement. Our code is available at https://github.com/nninjn/ProF.

Deep learning models for medical image classification are susceptible to subgroup performance disparities across demographic attributes such as age, gender, and race. We identify a latent representational mechanism underlying these disparities: in transfer-learned models, the dominant penultimate-layer activation channel under positive predictions is co-activated by both disease-positive samples and privileged demographic groups (male, older patients), producing over-diagnosis; conversely, the dominant channel under negative predictions is co-activated by disadvantaged groups (female, younger patients), producing systematic under-diagnosis. To address this, we propose Neuron Incidence Redistribution (NIR), a lightweight regularization method that penalizes the variance of predicted-probability-weighted mean activations across penultimate-layer neurons, requiring no demographic labels at training time. On HAM10000, TPR disparity drops from 10.81% to 0.93% across age groups and from 12.04% to 0.74% across gender, with a marginal AUC improvement of 0.51 points. On Harvard OCT-RNFL, NIR reduces FPR disparity for race (from 15.68% to 10.66%) and age (from 12.69% to 1.80%), demonstrating that distributing latent disease evidence across the full penultimate layer is a principled and effective strategy for improving demographic fairness in medical AI.

Diagnostic performance in medical AI varies systematically across demographic groups, yet subgroup AUC can mask clinically important disparities. At a fixed inference-time operating point, some groups may exhibit over-diagnostic behaviour, characterized by elevated true and false positive rates, while others show under-diagnostic patterns with reduced true and false positive rates. These opposing tendencies can cancel in aggregate AUCs while producing meaningful inequities in clinical decision-making. Motivated by the need to assess and mitigate such disparities at the operating point and across multiple demographic attributes simultaneously, we propose a worst-group equalized-odds margin regularizer. The proposed regularizer explicitly targets subgroup-level deviations on both the true positive and false positive sides at inference. At each update, the method identifies subgroups defined by explicit demographic attributes (e.g., age, sex, and race) that exhibit the most extreme margin deviations and applies a unified penalty, enabling fairness optimization across multiple demographic axes without requiring explicit intersectional constraints. Across two medical imaging datasets in realistic multi-label settings, our method consistently reduces disparities in Equalized Odds and Equalized Opportunity with minimal impact on AUC, preserving diagnostic performance while improving fairness.

Differentiable optimization layers are traditionally integrated in predict-then-optimize frameworks where a neural model estimates parameters that subsequently serve as fixed inputs to downstream decision-making optimization problems. In this work, we introduce the concept of a "fairness layer": a differentiable optimization layer appended to a model's output layer that guarantees a chosen notion of output parity is satisfied when integrated into a neural network. Additionally, we introduce an online primal-dual inference algorithm that provides provable aggregate fairness guarantees for streaming predictions with arbitrarily small batch sizes, where traditional per-batch constraints become overly restrictive. Numerical experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of the fairness layer and associated algorithm, and theoretical analysis characterizes the layer's differentiability and stability properties during model training and backpropagation. Our code for these experiments is publicly available on GitHub (https://github.com/dtroxell19/FairDL-ICML-2026.git) and our public Python package documentation can be found online: https://dtroxell19.github.io/fairness_training/.

Mortgage lending in the United States exhibits persistent racial and gender disparities. We investigate whether standard data preprocessing steps, specifically attribute binning, amplify these disparities in downstream pattern mining. Using 103,481 cleaned mortgage applications from the HMDA 2023 dataset (Chicago metropolitan area), we build a three-stage pipeline: (1) a PySpark data cleaning and binning pipeline that implements both standard equal-frequency binning and the epsilon-biased fair binning algorithm from Asudeh et al. [1], (2) FP-Growth association rule mining that compares denial patterns under both binning regimes, and (3) K-Means clustering with a per-cluster disparate impact audit. Our standard binning shows 9.63% racial bias in income discretization, consistent with the 8-10% reported in prior work. Fair binning with seven race groups is infeasible at epsilon=0.03 and only succeeds at epsilon=0.08 with a Price of Fairness of 29.4%. FP-Growth reveals that high debt-to-income ratio is the dominant denial predictor (67.2% confidence, 2.81 lift), while racial bias does not appear as explicit high-support rules. However, K-Means clustering followed by a disparate impact audit flags 10 out of 45 cluster-group pairs, showing that Black applicants face significantly higher denial rates than White applicants even among financially similar groups.

Large-scale facial datasets like CelebA are widely used in computer vision, yet the cultural biases embedded in their labels remain underexplored. Fairness research has distinguished representational from allocational harms, but audits of computer vision datasets have mostly examined categorical labels, leaving open how such harms appear in learned features and model attention. This paper examines CelebA at three levels: dataset structure, learned feature weights, and spatial attention, focusing on how gendered double standards of ageing and beauty are encoded in the data and reproduced in model behaviour. First, hierarchical clustering of 202,599 images shows that the 39 attributes organise into latent trait bundles aligned with cultural archetypes: performative femininity (youth, makeup, adornment) and professional masculinity (ageing, facial hair, formal attire). Female faces, though more often rated attractive overall, incur steep penalties when assigned to ageing or masculine-coded clusters. Second, XGBoost with SHAP analysis reveal gender-specific effects, such as adiposity reducing attractiveness only for females. Third, Grad-CAM finds that predictions for female and younger male subgroups concentrate on mid-face cues, whereas predictions for older males drift toward peripheral cues such as hair and clothing. Older males attain the highest accuracy but the lowest average precision, indicating categorical exclusion of groups outside the dataset's evaluative templates. Cultural double standards thus pass from media representation into dataset labels, feature weights, and model attention, producing two representational harms: hyper-scrutiny of women under a narrow evaluative template, and exclusion of older men from the scheme entirely. Fairness metrics focused on performance disparities mask both, underscoring the need to address representational harm in fairness research.

Machine learning (ML) algorithms are increasingly deployed in high-stakes decision-making domains such as loan approvals, hiring, and recidivism predictions. While existing fairness metrics (e.g., statistical parity, equal opportunity) effectively quantify outcome-oriented disparities, they offer limited insight into the procedure or explanation behind biased decisions. To address this gap, we propose Group-level Explanation Stability Disparity (GESD), a \textit{procedural-oriented} fairness metric that measures disparities in the stability, robustness, and sensitivity of model explanations across different subgroups in a protected category. %GESD is explainer-agnostic, model-agnostic, and extends the scope of fairness analyses to the level of explainability. We further integrate GESD into a multi-objective optimization framework that jointly optimizes for utility, outcome-based fairness, and explanation-based fairness called FEU (Fairness--Explainability--Utility). Empirical results on multiple benchmark datasets show that GESD effectively captures group-wise discrepancies in explanation quality, and that FEU improves both utility and fairness over state-of-the-art methods. By bridging outcome-based and explanation-based fairness, GESD offers a comprehensive tool for diagnosing and mitigating bias in predictive modeling. Our code and datasets are available on GitHub {\hyperlink{https://github.com/horlahsunbo/GESD}{https://github.com/horlahsunbo/GESD}}

A plethora real-world environments require agents to compete repeatedly for the same limited resource, calling for a temporal notion of fairness judged across entire interaction histories. This paper advances the theory of temporal fair division by introducing Rotational Periodicity (RP), a family of lightweight metrics, alongside the ALT family of sliding-window measures, within a unified framework for repeated multi-agent resource competition. We formalise the Multi-Agent Battle of the Exes (MBoE) as a repeated fair division instance and establish Perfect Alternation (PA) as its canonical temporally fair solution, drawing connections to proportionality, envy-freeness, and n-periodic round-robin allocation. RP decomposes temporal fairness into two complementary sub-measures: Rotational Score (RS) and Waiting Periods Evaluation (WPE), achieving O(nu+n) time complexity versus the O(nu*n) of ALT, where nu is the episode count and n the agent count. Empirical evaluation across n in {2,3,5,8,10} reveals three findings. First, both RP and ALT expose a coordination failure invisible to traditional metrics: Q-learning agents perform worse than random policies by 10-73% on RP and 7-35% on CALT, while Reward Fairness remains misleadingly high (above 0.92 for n>=3). Second, RP achieves 12-25x computational speedup over ALT, growing with n. Third, the two families are complementary: ALT provides richer discrimination for small populations; RP scales reliably where ALT becomes intractable. Together they form a diagnostic toolkit for temporal fair division.

Fairness in toxicity classification involves three integrated axes: ranking, calibration, and abstention. Training-time interventions and post-hoc safety mechanisms cannot be evaluated independently because the former determines the efficacy of the latter. We compare Empirical Risk Minimization (ERM), instance-level reweighting, and Group DRO across these axes, combined with temperature scaling, confidence-based abstention, and per-identity threshold optimization. Evaluation uses subgroup AUC, BPSN/BNSP AUC, error gaps, and per-subgroup Expected Calibration Error (ECE) with bootstrap CIs ($n = 1000$). We report four findings. (1) Calibration disparity is a hidden fairness violation. ERM has near-perfect aggregate calibration ($0.013$) but is significantly miscalibrated across all identity subgroups ($+0.029$ to $+0.134$). (2) Training interventions reshape rather than eliminate disparity. Reweighted ERM improves ranking (BPSN AUC $+0.06$ to $+0.12$) but worsens the calibration-fairness gap by up to $+0.232$. Group DRO eliminates calibration disparity but only by becoming uniformly miscalibrated globally (ECE $0.118$). (3) Post-hoc methods inherit training failure modes. Temperature scaling fails because miscalibration is non-uniform. Confidence-based abstention works under ERM but breaks under DRO, where the risk-coverage curve rises with deferral. (4) Abstention itself is unfair. Confidence-based deferral helps background content far more than identity-mentioning content. We argue that SRAI fairness requires a multi-axis framework: methods that differ only in aggregate ranking can differ sharply in failure modes that determine real-world harm.