Algorithmic Fairness

Clustering is an unsupervised machine learning task that consists of identifying groups of similar objects. It has numerous applications and is increasingly used in fairness-sensitive domains where objects represent individuals, such as customers, employees, or students. We address a fair clustering problem in which objects belong to protected groups. The problem consists of partitioning the objects into a predefined number of clusters while attaining a user-defined target level of fairness, meaning that each protected group is sufficiently represented in each cluster. The objective is to minimize the clustering cost, defined as the sum of squared Euclidean distances between the objects and the centers of their clusters. Since clustering cost and fairness are generally in conflict, managing the trade-off between them is essential in practical applications. Existing methods provide limited control over this trade-off and either fail to scale to large datasets or, when they scale, produce low-quality solutions. We propose a general framework for fair clustering that provides precise control over the cost-fairness trade-off and introduce three heuristics based on it. The first heuristic focuses on solution quality and the flexibility to incorporate additional constraints, the second improves scalability while retaining high solution quality, and the third is designed for maximum scalability, producing solutions for instances with millions of objects in seconds. The proposed heuristics outperform existing approaches in comprehensive numerical experiments on benchmark datasets. The source code of our heuristics and instructions for reproducing the experiments are publicly available on GitHub.

Clinical decision-support systems are expert systems whose recommendations clinicians act on directly, yet they are usually cleared on one aggregate accuracy number from a held-out test set. That number says nothing about input reliability under encoding shifts, subgroup gaps, threshold sensitivity, or operational feasibility. We present RISED, a pre-deployment evaluation framework operationalising five dimensions (Reliability, Inclusivity, Sensitivity, Equity, Deployability) through BCa bootstrap 95% confidence intervals, literature-grounded thresholds, and Holm-Bonferroni-corrected PASS / FAIL / INCONCLUSIVE verdicts; Equity is a proxy-dependence diagnostic rather than a gating test. Applied to seven cohorts spanning 35 years (n from 303 to 99,492), RISED surfaces failures invisible to AUROC: on Diabetes 130, Reliability passes by three orders of magnitude (PSS = 0.0004) while Inclusivity (AUC parity gap = 0.262) and Sensitivity (max threshold-flip rate 49.1%) fail decisively; both NHIS cohorts reproduce this. NHANES 2021-2023, with a complete feature profile, achieves INCONCLUSIVE verdicts; BRFSS 2024 produces the suite's most severe Sensitivity failure (max threshold-flip rate 64.2%) after instrument rotation removed hypertension and cholesterol. The pattern recurs on credit- and income-prediction cohorts, confirming domain-agnosticity; a multi-model check shows the failures are data-driven, not model-specific. RISED ships as an open-source Python package complementing TRIPOD+AI, FUTURE-AI, and Fairlearn with the structured numerical evidence those standards require but do not prescribe.

Machine learning algorithms in socially sensitive domains (e.g., credit decisions) often focus on equalizing predictive outcomes. However, satisfying these metrics does not guarantee that models use the same reasoning for different groups. We show that existing outcome-fair models can still apply fundamentally different reasoning to individuals, a hidden procedural bias'' missed by standard fairness metrics and algorithms. We propose Counterfactual Explanation Consistency (CEC), a framework that detects and mitigates this bias by aligning feature attributions between individuals and their counterfactual counterparts. Key contributions include a nearest-neighbor counterfactual generation method, a modified baseline for integrated gradient comparisons, an individual-level procedural fairness metric, and a corresponding training loss. We introduce a taxonomy identifying Regime B'' (same outcome, different reasoning) as a critical blind spot. Experiments on synthetic data, German Credit, Adult Income, and HMDA mortgage data demonstrate that outcome-fair baselines exhibit substantial hidden bias, while CEC substantially reduces it with modest utility cost.

Collaborative machine learning involves training high-quality models using datasets from a number of sources. To incentivize sources to share data, existing data valuation methods fairly reward each source based on its data submitted as is. However, as these methods do not verify nor incentivize data truthfulness, the sources can manipulate their data (e.g., by submitting duplicated or noisy data) to artificially increase their valuations and rewards or prevent others from benefiting. This paper presents the first mechanism that provably ensures (F) collaborative fairness and incentivizes (T) truthfulness at equilibrium for Bayesian models. Our mechanism combines semivalues (e.g., Shapley value), which ensure fairness, and a truthful data valuation function (DVF) based on a validation set that is unknown to the sources. As semivalues are influenced by others' data, we introduce an additional condition to prove that a source can maximize its expected data values in coalitions and semivalues by submitting a dataset that captures its true knowledge. Additionally, we discuss the implications and suitable relaxations of (F) and (T) when the mediator has a limited budget for rewards or lacks a validation set. Our theoretical findings are validated on synthetic and real-world datasets.

Automated systems built on artificial intelligence (AI) are increasingly deployed across high-stakes domains, raising critical concerns about fairness and the perpetuation of demographic disparities that exist in the world. In this context, causal inference provides a principled framework for reasoning about fairness, as it links observed disparities to underlying mechanisms and aligns naturally with human intuition and legal notions of discrimination. Prior work on causal fairness primarily focuses on the standard machine learning setting, where a decision-maker constructs a single predictive mechanism $f_{\widehat Y}$ for an outcome variable $Y$, while inheriting the causal mechanisms of all other covariates from the real world. The generative AI setting, however, is markedly more complex: generative models can sample from arbitrary conditionals over any set of variables, implicitly constructing their own beliefs about all causal mechanisms rather than learning a single predictive function. This fundamental difference requires new developments in causal fairness methodology. We formalize the problem of causal fairness in generative AI and unify it with the standard ML setting under a common theoretical framework. We then derive new causal decomposition results that enable granular quantification of fairness impacts along both (a) different causal pathways and (b) the replacement of real-world mechanisms by the generative model's mechanisms. We establish identification conditions and introduce efficient estimators for causal quantities of interest, and demonstrate the value of our methodology by analyzing race and gender bias in large language models across different datasets.

In the data-driven era, large-scale datasets are routinely collected and analyzed using machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) to inform decisions in high-stakes domains such as healthcare, employment, and criminal justice, raising concerns about the fairness behavior of these systems. Existing works in fair ML cover tasks such as bias detection, fair prediction, and fair decision-making, but largely focus on static settings. At the same time, fairness in temporal contexts, particularly survival/time-to-event (TTE) analysis, remains relatively underexplored, with current approaches to fair survival analysis adopting statistical fairness definitions, which, even with unlimited data, cannot disentangle the causal mechanisms that generate disparities. To address this gap, we develop a causal framework for fairness in TTE analysis, enabling the decomposition of disparities in survival into contributions from direct, indirect, and spurious pathways. This provides a human-understandable explanation of why disparities arise and how they evolve over time. Our non-parametric approach proceeds in four steps: (1) formalizing the necessary assumptions about censoring and lack of confounding using a graphical model; (2) recovering the conditional survival function given covariates; (3) applying the Causal Reduction Theorem to reframe the problem in a form amenable to causal pathway decomposition; (4) estimating the effects efficiently. Finally, our approach is used to analyze the temporal evolution of racial disparities in outcome after admission to an intensive care unit (ICU).

Generative AI models differ from traditional machine learning tools in that they allow users to provide as much or as little information as they choose in their inputs. This flexibility often leads users to omit certain details, relying on the models to infer and fill in under-specified information based on distributional knowledge of user preferences. Such inferences may privilege majority viewpoints and disadvantage users with atypical preferences, raising concerns about fairness. Unlike more traditional recommender systems, LLMs can explicitly solicit more information from users through natural language. However, while directly eliciting user preferences could increase personalization and mitigate inequality, excessive querying places a burden on users who value efficiency. We develop a stylized model of user-LLM interaction and develop an objective that captures tradeoff between user burden and preference representation. Building on the observation that individual preferences are often correlated, we analyze how AI systems should balance inference and elicitation, characterizing the optimal amount of information to solicit before content generation. Ultimately, we show that information elicitation can mitigate the systematic biases of preference inference, enabling the design of generative tools that better incorporate diverse user perspectives while maintaining efficiency. We complement this theoretical analysis with an empirical evaluation illustrating the model's predictions and exploring their practical implications.

Many studies have shown automatic speech processing (ASR) systems have unequal performance across speakergroups (SG's). However, the manner in which such studies arrive at this conclusion is inconsistent. To pave the wayfor more reliable results in future studies, we lay out best practices for benchmarking ASR fairness based on literaturefrom machine learning fairness, social sciences, and speech science. We first describe the importance of preciselythe fairness hypothesis being interrogated, and tailoring fairness metrics to apply specifically to said hypothesis.We then examine several benchmarks used to rate ASR systems on fairness and discuss how their results can bemisconstrued without assiduous oversight into the intersections between SG's. We find that evaluating fairnessbased on single heterogeneous SG's, such as they are defined in fairness benchmarks, can lead to misidentifyingwhich SG's are actually being mistreated by ASR systems. We advocate for as fine-grained an analysis as possibleof the intersectionality of as many demographic variables as are available in the metadata of fairness corpora in orderto tease out such spurious correlations

Designing fair algorithmic decision systems requires balancing model performance with fairness toward affected individuals: More fairness might require sacrificing some performance and vice versa, yet the space of possible trade-offs is still poorly understood. We investigate fairness in binary prediction-based decision problems by conceptualizing decision making as a multi-objective optimization problem that simultaneously considers decision-maker utility and group fairness. We investigate the set of Pareto-optimal decision rules for arbitrary utility functions for decision maker, arbitrary population distributions, and a wide range of group fairness metrics. We find that the Pareto frontier consists of deterministic, group-specific threshold rules applied to individuals' success probability. This complements existing optimality theorems from literature which, for specific fairness constraints, posit lower-bound threshold rules only. However we also show that, depending on the used fairness metric, the Pareto frontier may include upper-bound threshold rules, thus preferring individuals with lower success probabilities. We show that the location of the Pareto frontier depends only on population characteristics, utility functions and fairness score, but not on the technical design of the algorithm - our findings hold for pre-, in-, and post-processing approaches alike. Our results generalize existing optimality theorems for fairness-constrained classification and extend them to generalized fairness metrics and fairness principles, and to partial fairness regimes. This paper connects formal fairness research with legal and ethical requirements to search for less discriminatory alternatives, offering a principled foundation for evaluating and comparing algorithmic decision systems.

Machine learning algorithms are being used in high-stakes decisions, including those in criminal justice, healthcare, credit, and employment. The research community has responded with two largely independent research fields: \emph{algorithmic fairness}, which targets equitable outcomes, and \emph{explainable AI} (XAI), which targets interpretable reasoning. This survey identifies and maps a novel blind spot at their intersection, which is a model that can satisfy every standard fairness criterion in its outputs while being profoundly unfair in its \emph{reasoning process}. We refer to this as the procedural bias, and mitigating it requires treating the fairness of explanations as a distinct object of scientific study. To our knowledge, we provide the first unified theoretical and literature review of this emerging field and elucidate the drawbacks of post-hoc explainers in certifying explanation fairness. Our central contribution is a \emph{conditional invariance framework} formalizing explanation fairness as the requirement that explanations should be indifferent regardless of the protected attributes $P(E(X) \in \cdot \mid X_\text{rel} = x_\text{rel},\, A = a) = P(E(X) \in \cdot \mid X_\text{rel} = x_\text{rel},\, A = b)$ for all task-relevant $x$, a single principle from which all existing explanation fairness metrics emerge as partial operationalizations. We introduce a seven-dimensional taxonomy, identify three generative mechanisms of explanation inequity (representation-driven, explanation-model mismatch, actionability-driven), and propose a canonical six-step evaluation workflow for operationalizing explanation fairness audits in practice.

Fairness impossibility results often look like distinct scalar incompatibility statements. We show that several share one RKHS geometry: fairness criteria are linear constraints on conditional mean embeddings, and unequal base rates make the law of total expectation overdetermine those constraints. This view yields four results. The Kleinberg--Mullainathan--Raghavan dichotomy needs only group-conditional unbiasedness, not full calibration. The \emph{Pokémon theorem} shows that a distinct group pair satisfying any finite collection of linear mean-fairness criteria leaves a residual violation witnessed by the MMD, decaying at the Kolmogorov $m$-width rate under spectral regularity. The same tools prove an impossibility for fair feature learning: parity and class-conditional separation in representation space force class collapse under unequal base rates. The approximate relaxations yield signal and error frontiers, allowing a trade-off between real-world estimators and fairness goals. Experiments on standard fairness benchmarks are consistent with our bounds.

Audio deepfake detection systems are increasingly deployed in high-stakes security applications, yet their fairness across demographic groups remains critically underexamined. Prior work measures gender disparity but does not investigate where it comes from or how to fix it systematically. We present the first diagnosis-first framework that identifies bias source before applying targeted mitigation, evaluated on two models, AASIST and Wav2Vec2+ResNet18, on ASVSpoof5. Our diagnosis shows that bias does not stem from imbalanced training data but from acoustic representation differences, gender leakage in learned features, and structural evaluation asymmetry. We test mitigation strategies across in-processing, post-processing and combined families, including novel methods introduced in this work. Adjusting the decision threshold separately per gender reduces unfairness by 54% to 75% at no cost to detection accuracy, and our new epoch-level fairness regularisation method outperforms existing per-batch approaches. Adversarial debiasing succeeds only when gender leakage is localised, and fails when it is diffuse, an outcome correctly predicted by our diagnosis before training. No single method fully closes the fairness gap, confirming that bias sources must be identified before fixes are applied and that fairer benchmark design is equally important

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed not only to make decisions but to explain them. While AI decision fairness has been studied extensively, the fairness of AI explanations (whether LLMs justify decisions with equal quality, depth, tone, and linguistic sophistication across demographic groups) has received little attention. This paper introduces the Explanation Fairness Taxonomy (EFT), a framework comprising five formally defined, operationalizable dimensions: Verbosity Disparity, Sentiment Disparity, Epistemic Hedging Disparity, Decision-Linked Explanation Disparity, and Lexical Complexity Disparity. The taxonomy is instantiated in a controlled empirical study across 80 prompt templates, four consequential decision domains (hiring, medical triage, credit assessment, legal judgment), and five LLMs: GPT-4.1, Claude Sonnet, LLaMA 3.3 70B, GPT-OSS 120B, and Qwen3 32B. Two novel black-box metrics are introduced: the Hedging Density Score (HDS) and the Explanation Faithfulness Proxy (EFP), a heuristic indicator of decision-linked explanation variation. Across up to 400 prompt pairs, all eight EFT metrics show statistically significant disparities (Cohen's d ranging from small to large, all p_BH < 10^(-62)). Model choice is strongly associated with disparity magnitude: Qwen3 32B exhibits verbosity disparities 5.9x larger than LLaMA 3.3 70B. Two prompting-based mitigations show significant reductions in EFP disparity (78-95%) but no significant effect on stylistic dimensions, consistent with the hypothesis that stylistic explanation inequalities are encoded in pre-training distributions and are not resolvable through deployment-level instruction alone. A reproducible measurement framework is offered for explanation-level fairness auditing, with implications for AI regulation and deployment practice.

Evaluating fairness in Spiking Neural Networks (SNNs) demands rigorous benchmarks that reflect real-world complexities, yet existing assessments remain limited by superficial dataset diversity and idealized hardware assumptions. This work introduces the first systematic fairness benchmark for SNNs, addressing three critical dimensions of realism: (1) demographic coverage gaps in training data, (2) spurious feature leakage (e.g., skin tone as a proxy for class labels), and (3) deployment-environment mismatches (e.g., edge devices with constrained spike encoding). Our framework integrates four cross-demographic datasets with controlled bias injections and three neuromorphic hardware simulators (Loihi 2, SpiNNaker), enabling isolated analysis of fairness-performance trade-offs under resource constraints. Standardized evaluations of 12 state-of-the-art SNNs reveal stark disparities: models trained on biased data exhibit 23% higher false positive rates for underrepresented groups, while hardware limitations (e.g., reduced spike precision) further amplify accuracy gaps by up to 41% in edge deployments. Critically, bias mitigation strategies developed for cloud-based SNNs often degrade under resource constraints, highlighting the need for co-design principles that jointly optimize fairness and hardware efficiency. By bridging algorithmic fairness research with neuromorphic engineering, our benchmark provides a foundation for trustworthy SNNs in socially critical applications such as healthcare and autonomous systems. Our code is available at: https://anonymous.4open.science/r/SNN-Benchmarks-8017.

Labeled datasets reflect the biases of their annotation pipelines, which sometimes introduce label bias: group-conditional label errors that cause systematic performance disparities across demographic subgroups. Label bias in image segmentation remains underexplored, as even detecting it typically requires clean, unbiased annotations, which are not readily available. We present a data-centric adaptation of Confident Learning to segmentation, allowing detection of label bias directly in the training data without a clean, unbiased ground truth. By comparing the provided training labels to the model's confident predictions, we isolate directional errors that quantify the presence and nature of bias, where standard overlap metrics like Dice fail. We further show that label bias influences subgroup separability in the encoder's feature space, an artifact we leverage for bias mitigation rather than suppressing it. We evaluate three datasets, spanning from synthetic to real-life bias, showing how our framework reliably detects and mitigates bias without access to clean labels, achieving equitable performance across experimental conditions.

We study multi-objective multi-agent multi-armed bandits (MO-MA-MAB) under stochastic rewards, where agents observe heterogeneous reward vectors and communicate over time-varying graphs. We formulate this emerging problem setting to address \emph{efficient learning}, measured by Pareto regret, and incorporate \emph{fair learning} as an additional goal, captured via social welfare. To measure efficiency, we formulate Pareto regret and develop \textsc{Pareto UCB1 Gossip}, whose novel exploration radius explicitly separates statistical uncertainty in Pareto-based inference from consensus error. To express the fairness constraint, we formulate a Nash Social Welfare objective over preference-scalarized rewards and propose \textsc{Simulated NSW UCB Gossip}, which integrates preference-based reward simulation, gossip-based utility estimation, and UCB-style exploration. We prove that \textsc{Pareto UCB1 Gossip} achieves $\mathcal{O}(\log T)$ regret and an instance-independent rate of $\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{T})$, while \textsc{Simulated NSW UCB Gossip} achieves an instance-independent regret bound of $\mathcal{O}(T^{3/4})$. This separation reveals the cost of imposing the fairness constraint to our efficiency objective: fairness limits information aggregation and slows convergence. Experiments show that our methods consistently outperform baselines, improving performance by approximately $100\%$ and $50\%$ in the efficiency and fairness settings, respectively.

Graph representation learning (GRL) has evolved from topology-only graph embeddings to task-specific supervised GNNs, and more recently to reusable representations and graph foundation models (GFMs). However, existing evaluations mainly measure clean transfer, adaptation, and task coverage. It remains unclear whether GRL methods stay reliable when deployment stresses affect graph signals, graph contexts, label support, structural groups, or predictive evidence. We introduce GRL-Safety, a multi-axis safety evaluation benchmark for GRL. GRL-Safety evaluates twelve representative methods, spanning topology-only embedding methods, supervised GNNs, self-supervised graph models, and GFMs, on twenty-five graph datasets under standardized evaluation conditions while preserving method-native adaptation. The evaluation covers five safety axes: corruption robustness, OOD generalization, class imbalance, fairness, and interpretation, with per-axis and sub-condition reporting rather than a single aggregate score. Our analysis yields three cross-axis insights that can inspire future research. First, safety behavior is shaped by the interaction between representation design and the stressed graph factor, rather than by method family alone. Second, foundation-era methods show axis-specific strengths rather than broad safety dominance. Third, several deployment regimes remain difficult even for the best evaluated method, revealing capability gaps that require new robustness, adaptation, or training objectives beyond model selection. The benchmark, evaluation protocols, and code are available at: https://github.com/GXG-CS/GRL-Safety.

Multimodalpersonalityunderstandingplaysacriticalroleinhuman centered artificial intelligence. Previous work mainly focus on learn-ing rich multimodal representations for video personality under standing. However, they often suffer from potential harm caused by subject bias (e.g., observable age and unobservable mental states), as subjects originate from diverse demographic backgrounds. Learn ing such spurious associations between multimodal features and traits may lead to unfair personality understanding. In this work, weconstruct aStructural Causal Model (SCM)toanalyze theimpact of these biases from a causal perspective, and propose a novel Dual Causal Adjustment Network (DCAN) to mitigate the interference of subject attributes on personality understanding. Specifically, we design a Back-door Adjustment Causal Learning (BACL) module to block spurious correlations from observable demographic factors via a prototype-based confounder dictionary, and subsequently ap ply a Front-door Adjustment Causal Learning (FACL) module to ad dress latent and unobservable biases throughalearnedmediatordic tionary intervention, thereby achieving causal disentanglement of representations for deconfounded reasoning. Importantly, we con struct a Demographic-annotated Multimodal Student Personality (DMSP) dataset to support the analysis and discussion of fairness related factors. Extensive experiments on the benchmark dataset CFI-V2 and our DMSPdataset demonstrate that DCAN consistently improves prediction accuracy, reaching 92.11% and 92.90%, respec tively. Meanwhile, the improvementsinthefairnessmetricsofequal opportunity and demographic parity are 6.57% and 7.97% on CFI-V2, and 15.38% and 20.06% on the DMSP dataset. Our code and DMSP dataset are available at https://github.com/Sabrina-han/DCAN

Algorithmic decision-making in high-stakes settings can have profound impacts on individuals and populations. While much prior work studies fairness in static settings, recent results show that enforcing static fairness constraints may exacerbate long-run disparities. Motivated by this tension, we study a stylized sequential selection problem in which a decision-maker repeatedly selects individuals, affecting both immediate utility and the population distribution over time. We introduce notions of group fairness for both the short and long term and theoretically analyze the trade-off between fairness and utility via the Price of Fairness (PoF). We characterize optimal and fair policies in the short term and show that the PoF can be large even when group distributions are nearly identical. In contrast, we show that long-term disparities can vanish under simple investment policies that achieve a low PoF. We also empirically validate these theoretical observations using both synthetic and real datasets.

Artificial-intelligence systems are becoming ubiquitous in society, yet their predictions typically inherit biases with respect to protected attributes such as race, gender, or age. Classical fairness notions, most notably Statistical Parity (SP), demand that predictions be independent of the protected attributes, but are overly restrictive when these attributes influence mediating variables that are considered business necessities. Recent causal formulations relax SP by distinguishing allowed from not-allowed causal paths and by complementing SP with Predictive Parity (PP), requiring the predictor to replicate the legitimate influence of business-necessities. Existing path-based definitions are mainly practical when applied to categorical attributes. This paper introduces a new framework for fairness in structural causal models that is tailored to continuous protected attributes. We formalize SP and PP through path-specific partial derivatives, establish conditions under which these criteria coincide with prior causal definitions, and characterize when a fair predictor, one that satisfies SP along not-allowed paths while achieving PP along allowed paths, exists. Building on this theory, we propose a fair tuning algorithm that either constructs such a predictor or, when not possible, allows for a trade-off between SP and PP. We present experiments on simulated and real data to evaluate our proposal, compare it with previously proposed methods, and show that it performs better when PP is considered.

Automated glaucoma detection is critical for preventing irreversible vision loss and reducing the burden on healthcare systems. However, ensuring fairness across diverse patient populations remains a significant challenge. In this paper, we propose FairEnc, a fair pretraining method for vision-language models (VLMs) that enables simultaneous debiasing across multiple sensitive attributes. FairEnc jointly mitigates biases in both textual and visual modalities with respect to multiple sensitive attributes, including race, gender, ethnicity, and language. Specifically, for the textual encoder, we leverage a large language model to generate synthetic clinical descriptions with varied sensitive attributes while preserving disease semantics, and employ a contrastive alignment objective to encourage demographic-invariant representations. For the visual encoder, we propose a dual-level fairness strategy that combines mutual information regularization to reduce statistical dependence between learned features and demographic groups, with multi-discriminator adversarial debiasing. Comprehensive experiments on the publicly available Harvard-FairVLMed dataset demonstrate that FairEnc effectively reduces demographic disparity as measured by DPD and DEOdds while achieving strong diagnostic performance under both zero-shot and linear probing evaluations. Additional experiments on the private FairFundus dataset show that FairEnc consistently preserves fairness advantages under cross-domain and cross-modality settings and maintains diagnostic performance within a competitive range. These results highlight FairEnc's ability to generalize fairness under distribution shifts, supporting its potential for more equitable deployment in real-world clinical settings. Our codebase and synthetic clinical notes are available at https://github.com/Mohamed-Elhabebe/FairEnc

We present FairHealth, an open-source Python library that provides a unified, modular framework for trustworthy machine learning in healthcare applications, with particular focus on low-resource and low-income country (LMIC) settings such as Bangladesh. FairHealth addresses four critical gaps in existing healthcare AI toolkits: (1) the absence of integrated fairness auditing for biosignals and clinical tabular data; (2) the lack of privacy-preserving federated learning tools compatible with standard ML workflows; (3) missing explainability tools tailored for low-bandwidth clinical decision support; and (4) no existing toolkit covering Global South healthcare datasets. Built from five peer-reviewed research contributions, FairHealth provides six modules covering federated learning with homomorphic encryption (fairhealth.federated), intersectional fairness metrics (fairhealth.fairness), hybrid fuzzy-SHAP explainability (fairhealth.explain), multilingual dengue triage (fairhealth.lowresource), equitable disaster aid allocation (fairhealth.equity), and public dataset loaders (fairhealth.datasets). All datasets used are publicly available without institutional data use agreements. FairHealth is installable via pip install fairhealth(PyPI: pypi.org/project/fairhealth/) and available at https://github.com/Farjana-Yesmin/fairhealth.

Self-supervised learning methods learn high-quality visual representations, yet recent studies show that these representations often capture demographic biases present in the training data. Existing fairness-aware methods address this by redesigning the self-supervised objective itself, limiting portability across the rapidly evolving landscape of self-supervised learning (SSL) frameworks. We propose ProtoFair, a fairness-aware contrastive loss designed to work alongside existing SSL objectives without modifying them. ProtoFair leverages unsupervised prototype clustering to identify pseudo-counterfactual pairs: samples sharing the same cluster assignment but belonging to different sensitive groups. By pulling these content-matched, cross-group samples together in the embedding space, ProtoFair encourages the encoder to learn representations that are invariant to the sensitive attribute. The method requires only sensitive attribute annotations, no target labels, and integrates seamlessly with both SimCLR and SupCon. Experiments on CelebA and UTKFace demonstrate consistent fairness improvements while maintaining competitive accuracy.

Speech technologies are deployed in high-stakes settings, yet fairness concerns remain fragmented across tasks and disciplines. Existing surveys either adopt a general machine-learning perspective that overlooks speech-specific properties or focus on a single task, missing failure patterns shared across the speech domain. Synthesizing over 400 studies spanning generation and perception tasks and emerging speech-language models, this survey presents a unified framework that links formal fairness definitions to evaluation, diagnosis, and mitigation. We formalize seven fairness definitions adapted to the speech modality and organize the field's conceptual evolution through three paradigms: Robustness, Representation, and Governance. We then ground evaluation metrics in the mathematical cores of these definitions and offer a decision tree for metric selection. We diagnose bias sources along the speech processing pipeline, surfacing speech-specific mechanisms such as channel bias as a demographic proxy and annotation subjectivity in emotion labels. We systematize mitigation strategies across four intervention stages, mapping each to the diagnosed sources. Finally, we identify open challenges and propose directions for future research.

Algorithmic fairness is essential for responsible ML-driven public health research, yet its practical implementation remains limited. To investigate this awareness-action gap, we conducted a sequential mixed-methods study comprising expert interviews, an online survey, and systematic mapping. The expert interviews informed the design of the survey, which in turn revealed fragmented definitions of fairness, limited training and guidance, reliance on external sources, and rare use of formal assessment, mitigation, or monitoring. These findings were subsequently mapped onto three established research-practice gap lenses: the Knowledge-Practice Gap, the Knowledge-to-Action Cycle, and the Knowing-Doing Gap, each offering complementary perspectives. Building on this synthesis, we introduce the Fairness-to-Action framework, which integrates methodological, organizational, and systemic dimensions to identify where translation of algorithmic fairness knowledge stalls. Our analysis shows that fairness remains weakly institutionalized, translation mechanisms are externally driven, and system-level priorities continue to emphasize accuracy over fairness. These insights suggest critical leverage points for advancing safe, fair, and ethical ML-driven public health research practice.

We propose a new framework for meritocratic fairness in budgeted combinatorial multi-armed bandits with full-bandit feedback (BCMAB-FBF). Unlike semi-bandit feedback, the contribution of individual arms is not received in full-bandit feedback, making the setting significantly more challenging. To compute arm contributions in BCMAB-FBF, we first extend the Shapley value, a classical solution concept from cooperative game theory, to the $K$-Shapley value, which captures the marginal contribution of an agent restricted to a set of size at most $K$. We show that $K$-Shapley value is a unique solution concept that satisfies Symmetry, Linearity, Null player, and efficiency properties. We next propose K-SVFair-FBF, a fairness-aware bandit algorithm that adaptively estimates $K$-Shapley value with unknown valuation function. Unlike standard bandit literature on full bandit feedback, K-SVFair-FBF not only learns the valuation function under full feedback setting but also mitigates the noise arising from Monte Carlo approximations. Theoretically, we prove that K-SVFair-FBF achieves $O(T^{3/4})$ regret bound on fairness regret. Through experiments on federated learning and social influence maximization datasets, we demonstrate that our approach achieves fairness and performs more effectively than existing baselines.

In Machine Learning, an accepted definition of fairness of a decision taken by a classifier is that it should not depend on protected features, such as gender. Unfortunately, when constraints exist between features, such dependencies can be obscured by the constraints. To avoid this problem, we propose that a decision be considered fair if it has a fair explanation. We define a fair explanation as a prime-implicant reason for the decision that does not contain any protected feature (where the constraints are taken into account in the definition of prime-implicant). Surprisingly, ignoring constraints can completely change the fairness of a decision (according to this definition) even in the absence of constraints between protected and unprotected features. Three possible definitions of fairness of a classifier are that for all its decisions (1) there are only fair explanations, (2) there is at least one fair explanation, or (3) changing protected features does not change the outcome. We identify the relationships between these different definitions of fairness and study the computational complexity of testing fairness of classifiers.

Bias in medical AI is often framed as a problem of representation. However, in image-based tasks such as fetal ultrasound, performance disparities can arise even when representation is adequate, because predictive accuracy depends strongly on image quality. Image quality is shaped by acquisition conditions and operator expertise, as well as patient-dependent factors such as maternal body mass index (BMI), all of which may correlate with sensitive demographic features. Consequently, observed disparities may reflect the combined influence of demographic, clinical, and acquisition-related factors rather than data imbalance alone, and may obscure underlying interaction or confounding effects. We propose a structured framework to explore and detect intersectional bias, combining unsupervised slice discovery, systematic factor-wise analysis, and targeted intersectional evaluation. In a case study of over 94{,}000 ultrasound images for fetal weight estimation, we analyze bias in a state-of-the-art deep learning (DL) model and the clinical standard Hadlock, a regression formula using biometric measurements. Pixel spacing (PS) -- a parameter considered suboptimal in current acquisition protocols -- emerged as a consistent driver of performance differences, with higher PS associated with improvements of up to 24% in selected subgroups for both models. Because PS is often adapted in cases of high BMI or low gestational age (GA), this effect carries a substantial risk of confounding. Our intersectional analysis revealed that part of the PS-associated signal is explained by GA, while PS-related improvements persist across BMI strata, highlighting the importance of acquisition-aware and interaction-aware evaluation in medical AI fairness research.

Dataset Distillation aims to compress a large dataset into a small synthetic one while maintaining predictive performance. We show that as different demographic groups exhibit distinct predictive patterns, the distillation process struggles to simultaneously preserve informative signals for all subgroups, regardless of whether group sizes are mildly or severely imbalanced. Consequently, models trained on distilled data can experience substantial performance drops for certain subgroups, leading to fairness gaps. Crucially, these gaps do not disappear by merely correcting group imbalance, since they stem from fundamental mismatches in subgroup predictive patterns rather than from sample-size disparities alone. We therefore formally analyze the interaction between these two sources of bias and cast the solution as identifying a group-imbalance-agnostic barycenter of the predictive information that induces similar representations across all subgroups. By distilling toward this shared aggregate representation, we show that group fairness concerns can be reduced. Our approach is compatible with existing distillation methods, and empirical results show that it substantially reduces bias introduced by dataset distillation. Code is available at https://github.com/mhmoslemi/COBRA.

Fairness in machine learning remains challenging due to its ethical complexity, the absence of a universal definition, and the need for context-specific bias metrics. Existing methods still struggle with intersectionality, multiclass settings, and limited flexibility and generality. To address these gaps, we introduce MIFair, a unified framework for bias assessment and mitigation based on mutual information. MIFair provides a flexible metric template and an in-processing mitigation method inspired by the Prejudice Remover, defining group fairness as statistical independence between prediction-derived variables and sensitive attributes. We further strengthen its information-theoretic foundation by establishing equivalences with widely used fairness notions such as independence and separation. MIFair naturally supports intersectionality, complex subgroup structures, and multiclass classification and employs regularization-based training to reduce bias according to the selected metric. Its key advantage is its versatility: it consolidates diverse fairness requirements into a single coherent framework, enabling consistent benchmarking and simplifying practical use. Experiments on real-world tabular and image datasets show that MIFair effectively reduces bias, including previously unaddressed multi-attribute scenarios, while maintaining strong predictive performance across the evaluated settings.