Demographics

We introduce the Illinois Social Attitudes Aggregate Corpus (ISAAC), an open, modular, and accessible corpus of 527 million+ English-language Reddit posts selected for relevance to six key social group distinctions based on race, sexuality, age, ability, body weight, and skin tone, covering the 17-year period from 2007 to 2023. A multi-step, human-audited filtering pipeline was used to keep irrelevant content in the curated dataset below 10%, both overall and for each social group distinction. Each post was then algorithmically annotated with the user's estimated home region, along with a suite of validated off-the-shelf and custom semantic labels including moralization, sentiment, emotion, and linguistic generalization. We confirm the validity of the resulting corpus through convergent evidence linking ISAAC to macro-level societal trends, such as online search behavior, temporal spikes during major societal events (both nationally and regionally), and long-term shifts in public attitudes. By offering a unified, public infrastructure, ISAAC eliminates research fragmentation and enables seamless replication while supporting diverse empirical workflows at scale. Specifically, ISAAC allows investigators to perform cross-category comparisons, conduct high-precision tracking of long-term temporal shifts in social group discourse, and map spatial variation onto localized public opinion and policy outcomes. ISAAC's fully public, modular pipeline facilitates easy extension of the corpus to new platforms, languages, and social categories. To accommodate various research needs, ISAAC is accessible both without coding through a point-and-click website and labeler web-apps, and programmatically via an SQL playground, a Python package, and HuggingFace.

Fairness audits in production ML typically occur once, at deployment, on a single domain. Both fail in practice: fairness can shift after retraining or a changing user base, and interventions validated on one dataset are rarely tested across the heterogeneous domains an organization deploys. We present FAPE (Fairness Auditing for Production Environments), a four-stage framework evaluating a single post-processing intervention, Fairlearn's ThresholdOptimizer, across eight domain evaluations: criminal justice, income prediction, legal admissions, credit lending, agricultural lending, a multi-domain benchmark corpus, healthcare, and education. Each is scored on demographic parity and equalized odds difference, plus disparate impact ratio and accuracy cost where computable. Intervention effectiveness tracks baseline disparity magnitude: across model-domain pairs the constraint improved disparity in 9 of 14 high-disparity cases and worsened it in 3 of 4 near-fair ones. Each of the five high-disparity exceptions reverses under one of two measurement checks, a minimum group size or thresholds fit on held-out data. A CUSUM monitor started at deployment, tested on a simulated shift, separates constrained models that never met a 0.1 parity convention from those that met it and later regressed. A single deployment-time audit is therefore an unreliable guide, which argues for baseline-disparity screening and continuous monitoring

Fairness-aware distributed learning prioritizes clients with large losses to reduce performance disparities, but label poisoning can create large losses, thereby inducing a fairness--robustness conflict. We propose FairMean to manage this conflict. FairMean weights client gradients using a bounded, nondecreasing function of local loss. The increasing weights prioritize high-loss clients to promote fairness, while the upper bound prevents excessive loss-induced amplification of poisoned-client gradients. In the absence of label poisoning, we show that minimizing the FairMean objective is more conducive to solution fairness than minimizing the standard average-loss objective. Under label poisoning, we establish an average-stationarity bound whose attack-dependent term is proportional to the square of the poisoned-client fraction. Experiments show that FairMean promotes fairness by reducing accuracy variance while improving worst-client accuracy.

Multi-view clustering (MVC) aims to uncover latent cluster structures by exploiting complementary information from multiple views. Despite substantial progress in clustering performance, fairness remains an important concern when MVC is applied to socially sensitive scenarios. Recent fair multi-view clustering methods have introduced fairness constraints into representation learning or clustering assignments. However, these methods generally treat different views under a largely uniform fairness mechanism, without explicitly distinguishing their varying levels of sensitive dependence during cross-view learning. In practice, different views may encode substantially different levels of sensitive information. Ignoring such cross-view discrepancy can allow highly sensitive-dependent views to influence less sensitive-dependent ones during cross-view learning, potentially degrading both clustering performance and fairness. To address this issue, we propose a novel multi-view fair clustering framework guided by cross-view sensitive information discrepancy. Specifically, we estimate the sensitive dependence of each view and develop a bias-ranked asymmetric alignment mechanism that encourages views with higher sensitive dependence to learn from those with lower sensitive dependence, while cross-view discrepancies are further exploited to adaptively regulate the alignment process. Moreover, fairness regularization is imposed on the consensus soft assignments to further promote group fairness. Extensive experiments on benchmark datasets demonstrate that the proposed method achieves a favorable balance between clustering quality and group fairness.

Scheduling clients for model training is critical in federated learning due to both data and system heterogeneity. Most previous works focus on the quality of the scheduled clients to achieve faster convergence, shorter wall-clock convergence time, or better average model performance. They rarely consider the diversity of clients, which is important to counter heterogeneity and improve performance for the worst-off clients. In this work, we advocate the use of determinantal point processes (DPPs) to model and enhance the diversity in client scheduling. We first design the kernel matrices of DPPs using gradient information and quality scores, which inherently enables a flexible quality-diversity trade-off. Applying fast MAP inference over DPPs, we propose Adaptive Determinantal Client Scheduling (ADCS) in FL. We further quantify the gradient approximation error of ADCS and develop convergence analysis for general biased client selection in FL with non-convex loss functions. We conduct comparative numerical experiments showing that ADCS outperforms state-of-the-art client scheduling algorithms, including both quality-based and diversity-based ones.

Federated learning lets multiple parties train a shared model without pooling their data, but a client with far less data than the others can end up poorly served even when the group's average accuracy looks fine. We ask whether the choice of pretrained backbone affects this under LoRA fine-tuning, and whether per-word perplexity on the target text predicts which backbone helps the worst-off client before federated training starts. We ran 313 experiments across three text-classification datasets and three similarly sized backbones (RoBERTa, BERTweet, PubMedBERT), each compared against a task-specific baseline on identical data splits. Lower-perplexity backbones consistently produced larger gains for the worst-performing client, with a rank correlation of -0.87 across nine dataset-backbone pairs; a backbone held out of the analysis confirmed the pattern. Personalization with Ditto recovered only 4-12% of the gap between training alone and full federation, and removing aggregation entirely erased the benefit. A client's update also showed no sign of conflicting with the group's update; the two are close to orthogonal, ruling out one proposed explanation for this failure. Practically: measure perplexity on a sample of task text before choosing a backbone, and do not rely on personalization to protect a data-poor client. We release our code, predictions, and full results for others to test.

Heterogeneous federated learning requires clients with diverse computational capacities to collaboratively train a global model, where each client trains a capacity-constrained submodel. Existing methods select submodel parameters using heuristic importance measures---most prominently parameter magnitude---without theoretical justification for why these measures support convergence. We identify a fundamental gap: existing parameter selection criteria lack theoretical grounding in the convergence framework, partial client participation introduces additional estimation effects in the Fisher scores. We propose \textbf{FedFIbOS}: Fisher Importance-based Optimal Submodelling for heterogeneous federated learning, using Fisher Information in a principled criterion derived from minimizing submodel masking error. %We formally establish when magnitude selection is equivalent to Fisher selection fail under non-IID heterogeneous federated learning. We theoretically formulate submodel selection through a Fisher-weighted quadratic masking surrogate and show that the raw Fisher top-$k$ rule implemented by FedFIbOS solves this surrogate under a Fisher-dominant ranking condition. The resulting method retains the convergence structure of the underlying masked federated optimization bound. Fisher scores are efficiently estimated from empirical diagonal Fisher information using squared gradients, enabling stable and adaptive parameter selection without additional optimization overhead. Experiments on CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, and AGNews under pathological and Dirichlet non-IID settings show FedFIbOS achieves ${\approx}10\%$ higher accuracy than the state of the art, with improvements becoming more pronounced under stronger heterogeneity.

Small clinical tabular datasets require interpretable machine learning because deep learning is often impractical and ensemble models can be difficult to inspect. A key pitfall is that statistical significance does not necessarily imply predictive utility. Using data from the Panama Aging Research Initiative--Health Disparities (PARI-HD) cohort (n=165), we implemented a leakage-safe threshold-likelihood Bernoulli/Categorical Naive Bayes (BNB/CNB) classifier. Within every training fold, each continuous predictor was reduced to a supervised chi-square-derived state, while income entered the model through a categorical likelihood. All data-dependent steps were performed within repeated stratified 10-fold cross-validation with 30 repeats. The demographic baseline achieved a ROC-AUC of 0.630 +/- 0.017. I-309 (CCL1) was the dominant incremental feature, increasing AUC by 0.110, with paired DeLong tests yielding p<0.05 in 100% of repeats. In the pre-specified primary analysis, I-309 produced a fixed-partition DeLong p=0.0018, with robustness assessed across 200 random partitions, where the median p-value was 0.0011. Within the exploratory family of 18 candidate markers, I-309 achieved a Benjamini-Hochberg-adjusted q=0.032 on the frozen partition and satisfied q<0.05 in 85% of random partitions, whereas no other marker demonstrated reliable incremental predictive value. Because the fitted model is an inspectable table of thresholds and class-conditional probabilities, these results identify I-309/CCL1 as an interpretable candidate feature for tabular prediction of cognitive impairment, pending external validation.

This paper presents the AR fairness metamodel, a framework designed to represent, analyze, and compare different fairness scenarios. The metamodel considers key elements, such as agents, resources, and their attributes, and enables the systematic definition and comparison of various fairness measures. We provide examples involving both discrete and continuous measures, including equality, equity, group fairness, individual fairness, the Gini index, the Theil index, Jain's fairness index, and a detailed fairness measure for Australia's Child Care Subsidy. We also explore relationships among group fairness, individual fairness, and envy-freeness, supported by formal proofs. At the conceptual modeling level, our approach builds on the Tiles framework, which offers modular components that can be connected to capture diverse fairness definitions. The goal is to make AR-based fairness definitions practical and adaptable across contexts, providing a clear way to define, compare, and evaluate them. An implementation of the Tiles framework is available as an open-source tool, and can support fairness modeling and evaluation across a wide range of applications.

Large Language Models are now common in student assessment, but we know little about how student demographics affect their use. Sometimes, considering student demographics may be necessary -- for example, to improve readability for users with lower educational levels. However, it also risks being a cause of discrimination, e.g., when assigning lower scores to students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. We set up controlled prompts to test 1) explicit demographic effects, where we mention demographic details directly, and 2) implicit effects, where we use conversation history as a demographic signal. We test these settings in three tasks: Automated Essay Scoring, Formative Feedback, and Metalinguistic Question Answering. We test six state-of-the-art LLMs on these tasks. In both explicit and implicit cases, the models pick up on demographic cues and can change their scoring, feedback, and answers accordingly. We find that LLMs frequently adjust the readability of feedback to education levels when these are explicitly mentioned. On the other hand, implicit conditions produce unpredictable biases, such as in question answering, where responses from lower-education levels receive lower sentiment scores. Our results provide clear evidence of demographic sensitivity in LLMs for educational assessment tasks.

Despite steady progress in face recognition, current face recognition models still suffer from significant demographic biases. While approaches for bias mitigation have been proposed, existing methods often impose constraints on the training procedure and result in the degradation of recognition accuracy. To address this issue, we here introduce a method that reduces racial bias in pre-trained face recognition models without compromising their accuracy. To this end, we model face embeddings of each person by von Mises-Fisher (MF) distribution. We next observe the dependency between demographic attributes and the density of MF distributions, and propose DenseFace, a probabilistic face matching procedure that accounts for differences in MF distributions. Our extensive experiments demonstrate DenseFace to consistently reduce racial bias in strong face recognition models varying in network architectures, training datasets and loss functions. Notably, DenseFace preserves recognition accuracy and requires no retraining of the underlying face recognition model. Our work also investigates previously adopted bias measures and makes suggestions.

The deployment of Federated Learning (FL) in multi-center clinical networks faces the challenge of "knowledge dominance," where high-volume hubs naturally overwhelm minority community nodes, implicitly treating the distinct clinical patterns of smaller cohorts as outliers. Existing geometric defenses provide a security baseline but leave this efficiency-fairness dilemma unresolved. To bridge this gap, we propose Fed-Equilibrium, a framework that advances the paradigm from simple defense to topological equilibrium. Unlike traditional aggregators, Fed-Equilibrium implements a sequential architectural synergy. It utilizes a two-stage gradient control cascade: Stage I (geometric quality assurance) enforces directional consistency via a cosine similarity funnel to filter malicious noise, creating a stabilized manifold; Stage II (topological Pareto control) then actively modulates verified contributions by identifying the optimal Pareto knee point. We validated this framework on a bi-national simulation integrating Canadian (CNODES) and U.S. (SyntheticMass) registries. Experimental results demonstrate that the system simultaneously secures the network against adversarial divergence while accommodating underrepresented signals. Notably, the minority U.S. spoke (representing less than 3% of data volume) achieved deep convergence comparable to the data-rich Canadian hub. This confirms that Fed-Equilibrium effectively counters "knowledge dominance," establishing a true "knowledge commons" where global generalizability does not come at the cost of local clinical representation.

Warning: This submission studies stereotypes and biases, and contains toxic and offensive examples, used for illustration purposes only. Fairness benchmarks such as BBQ have become the de facto standard for fairness evaluation across major model families. We argue that these benchmarks are too easy to support their role: training Qwen 2.5 7B Base with Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) on a single BBQ example, or placing that example in context as a one-shot demonstration for in-context learning (ICL), lifts mean BBQ accuracy from 79.9% to 92.9% and 99.0%, respectively, closing 80% of the gap to its large-scale RLHF counterpart (96.1%) with GRPO, and surpassing it with ICL. These effects generalize across model families. A cross-conditioning analysis shows the improvement is carried by the reasoning traces generated by the model, and one example suffices to elicit a category-agnostic ``missing evidence'' reasoning pattern. We argue that BBQ-style multiple-choice abstention benchmarks measure a single structural cue, and a model that solves them does not thereby become fair. We call for evaluation suites that cover a broader spectrum of fairness alignment.

Choosing when to retrain a deployed classifier requires assessing subgroup error rates across the sequence of models used, including periods between updates. We compare complete scheduled, loss-triggered, and subgroup-gap-triggered policies with retaining the initial model on the same observations and delayed labels. For true-positive and false-positive rates separately, the outcome is the paired difference in absolute subgroup gaps summed over deployment windows. Population evaluation in simulation, action records, and alternative schedules assess how measurement and retraining behaviour affect these comparisons. In a follow-up sample of 400 new trajectories per condition across two simulated drift regimes, all three policies had lower mean cumulative disparity, equivalent to reductions of 0.04 to 0.88 percentage points in the average gap per window. Evaluating the unchanged models against the known generating distributions preserved all mean directions, but finite-window and population comparisons agreed on whether updating increased, reduced or left cumulative disparity unchanged in 69 to 92 percent of trajectories. Under subgroup-specific drift, smaller true-positive-rate gaps accompanied lower sensitivity in both groups. In an exploratory American Community Survey replay, person weighting reversed all three race false-positive-rate mean comparisons without changing predictions or actions; all three weighted intervals included zero. Policy comparisons require group-specific rates, action distributions, and an explicit evaluation population alongside mean disparity. These analyses are non-confirmatory. Shared replay requires policy-independent observations and complete labels after the specified delay.

Fairness auditing of text-to-image diffusion models often requires generating large numbers of images across sampling configurations, making comprehensive evaluation computationally expensive. We propose a causal-abstraction-based audit instrument for efficiently evaluating fairness under interventions on the classifier-free guidance scale. Given a fixed prompt and a target feature function, we represent the diffusion process as a low-level structural causal model and construct a corresponding high-level model over abstract denoising states. We characterize the projected causal structure, establish identifiability of the fairness-relevant interventional query, and provide sufficient conditions under which the high-level model preserves this query. A probabilistic transformer implements the high-level model as an amortized predictor of target-feature distributions across guidance scales. Experiments evaluate distributional fidelity, fairness-query accuracy, and computational efficiency. We present two auditing demonstrations: one using standard Stable Diffusion 1.5 and another using StayFair, a fairness-enhanced Stable Diffusion model, to examine their behavior across guidance scales.

Travel survey data are essential for transportation planning and travel behavior analysis, yet collecting large-scale representative samples is costly and time-consuming. A practical alternative is to generate synthetic survey records from a few-shot sample. However, such samples provide incomplete coverage of heterogeneous traveler groups and insufficient evidence for recovering the complex dependencies between demographic characteristics and travel behavior. Existing approaches have complementary limitations. Probabilistic generative models such as Bayesian networks (BNs) offer explicit distributional control, but structures learned from few-shot samples may omit meaningful dependencies or retain spurious ones. Large language models (LLMs) can help address these difficulties in BN structure learning by providing behavioral knowledge that complements the limited statistical evidence. We therefore propose LEBGen, an LLM-enhanced BN framework that uses this knowledge to refine network structure for few-shot travel survey data generation. Specifically, the LLM first identifies traveler personas from demographic attribute and travel behavior statistics, then recovers dependencies missed by the persona-augmented BN structure and prune spurious ones. The refined BN is parameterized exclusively from the observed data to generate synthetic records. Under a 2% few-shot setting on the 2022 Hong Kong Travel Characteristics Survey, LEBGen reduces the mean marginal Jensen-Shannon divergence from 0.0671 to 0.0091 and the mean absolute Cramer's V error by 14.3% over the best-performing baseline, substantially improving both distributional and dependency fidelity.

Fairness in clustering has attracted sustained research interest, motivated by the need to ensure equitable representation of protected groups in machine learning applications. We study fair $k$-means clustering in Euclidean space, where the proportion of each protected group in every cluster must lie within specified lower and upper bounds. These constraints make it challenging to determine both cluster centers and point assignments. We propose an approximation algorithm that combines a linear programming relaxation with geometric transformations of the input to construct candidate center sets. Given a $ρ$-approximate algorithm for weighted $k$-means and any $ε>0$, our algorithm returns a fractional solution whose cost is at most $1+(3-1/Γ)ρ+O(ε)$ times the optimal integral fair cost, where $Γ\approx6.357$ is an upper bound on the integrality gap of the standard Euclidean $k$-means LP. With a PTAS as the subroutine, the approximation ratio becomes $3.8427+O(ε)$, improving the previous factor of $5+O(ε)$ to below $4$. The solution satisfies all fairness constraints exactly and can be rounded to an integral assignment with a bounded additive violation of fairness and no increase in cost. The same approximation guarantee extends to the $k$-sparse Wasserstein barycenter problem.

Asynchronous federated learning improves scalability by updating the global model from a server-side buffer of client updates as they arrive, rather than waiting for all selected clients to finish. While efficient, this arrival-driven aggregation can silently distort representation learning under heterogeneous participation. We identify silent rarity failure, a hidden failure mode in which clients holding rare labels contribute too weakly to the global model even though its overall accuracy appears largely unaffected. This failure arises from two coupled effects: rare-label clients may submit updates less frequently when they are slower or less available, creating participation bias; and once their updates enter the buffer, standard asynchronous aggregation assigns them no compensating influence, creating aggregation bias. We propose FedRAW, a fully server-side aggregation method that preserves rare-label influence without changing local training, client objectives, or communication protocols. FedRAW combines client-level update deduplication, which prevents frequently arriving clients from repeatedly dominating the update buffer, with rare-label-aware weighting, which increases the influence of clients carrying low-coverage labels. We formalize silent rarity failure through participation and aggregation bias, and show that FedRAW increases rare-label client influence over uniform aggregation while preserving convergence. Across EMNIST Balanced, CIFAR-10, HAM10000, and ISIC-2019, FedRAW improves rarelabel accuracy while preserving comparable global accuracy and adding negligible server-side computation.

Counterfactual audits are the standard tool for checking whether a clinical agent treats demographically distinct but clinically identical patients differently. They report a flip rate: how often an action changes when only the patient descriptor changes. We show that this quantity is uninterpretable on its own. Re-running an identical condition ten times over sixteen vignettes (same narrative, same descriptor string, nothing varied) moved a clinical agent's action in 8.7% of outcome-vignette cells, and instability was heterogeneous across actions by a factor of eight, from 0.022 for ICU escalation to 0.179 for controlled-substance caution. No demographic contrast in our data was distinguishable from that floor. A second model gives a pooled floor of 6.7% and ranks the six actions almost identically (Spearman 0.94, exact p=0.017), so the floor is not one system's artefact. Majority-vote aggregation over five draws removes 39% of it and then flattens, and a null simulation attributes the residue to heterogeneous per-cell rates, so replication mitigates without eliminating. Any counterfactual fairness estimate reported without a per-action floor beside it therefore cannot be read as evidence of disparity. The measurements were taken with FairMedAgent, an evaluation harness for disparity in the actions of clinical LLM agents whose estimand, the within-range counterfactual flip rate, counts only flips between actions a published decision rule admits and a clinician has adjudicated. That estimand requires band adjudication, which is under way; no disparity result is claimed here. Each synthetic vignette runs a six-stage trajectory (five model-facing decisions around a deterministic environment step) under fixed-form conditions spanning race, sex, age, insurance, English proficiency, and their intersections. The harness, the floor protocol, and every analysis script are released.

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly used to make decisions from visual inputs. We introduce FAIRLENS, a benchmark and evaluation framework for measuring both the fairness and the validity of VLM responses in three high-stakes domains: hiring, legal, and healthcare. FAIRLENS pairs real face images spanning gender, race, and age groups with closed- and open-ended questions, giving more than 100K image-question pairs per model, and evaluates responses from four complementary views: demographic parity over adverse outcome rates, soundness, demographic association over unsupported roles and statuses, and bias in free-text generation. Soundness is the central validity criterion: a response is sound when it follows the evidence stated in the question and abstains when the image cannot support an answer. Evaluating eight VLMs, we find that the primary failure is unwarranted inference rather than unequal treatment. Models routinely infer qualifications, threat, illness, or professional role from a face instead of abstaining, and the weakest model does so on 99% of the questions its input cannot answer. These failures are most severe in legal and healthcare, where recognizing insufficient evidence matters most, and disparity metrics alone would miss them: parity gaps are small in absolute terms, yet when baseline adverse rates are low the same gap means one demographic group receives adverse labels several times as often as another, and a small gap can equally reflect a model that treats every group unsafely. Bias in free-text responses is only loosely coupled to multiple-choice accuracy, so correct structured answers do not imply safe generation. FAIRLENS shows that fair high-stakes VLM behavior requires similar treatment across groups and refusal to infer high-stakes attributes from appearance, and its question suite transfers to any face corpus with demographic annotations.

Machine learning systems deployed for credit, hiring, and resource distribution are increasingly subject to regulatory oversight from policies such as the EU AI Act and GDPR. Current fairness governance practices rely on observational fairness metrics, post-hoc explainability, and immutable audit logs, but provide limited support for causal attribution and efficient evidentiary verification. We introduce Causal Evidentiary Governance (CEG), a framework in which regulated institutions commit to a versioned directed acyclic graph (DAG) that partitions causal pathways into allowable and disallowed groups. The Causal Harm Rate measures prediction variation attributable to disallowed causal pathways. Each decision is accompanied by a signed Decision-Evidence Packet (DEP), cryptographically binding the prediction to a digest of the published DAG and path-specific attributions. DEP digests can be appended to a Merkle tree to enable logarithmic-cost inclusion proofs. We validate CEG through a two-layer empirical methodology using demographic summaries from four years of PMA credit supervisory data to construct 10,000 synthetic credit applicants across four strategic DAG counterfactuals. Causal Harm Rate isolates injected causal effects more clearly than demographic parity or equalized odds. Cross-model validation and ablation studies assess robustness. Evaluation on the German Credit dataset shows that harm associated with specific causal pathways can be substantially understated by associational fairness metrics. Finally, a proof-of-concept implementation demonstrates operationally plausible throughput and highlights relevant performance tradeoffs.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges for subjective tasks, where annotators disagree and the relevant question is not only how accurate a judge is, but whose judgments it reproduces. Sociodemographic prompting conditions the judge on an annotator's demographic profile to align its judgments with the corresponding group's. We test whether this alignment emerges distributionally, comparing the predicted label distributions of 23 open-weight LLMs on three subjective tasks against those of real annotator groups, under three conditions: no demographic information, single-attribute profiles, and intersectional profiles over gender, age, race, and education. Three findings emerge. First, a judge prompted with no demographics is not perspective-neutral: models best reproduce the judgments of White, college-educated annotators. Second, demographic conditioning is asymmetric: it moves the judge toward majority groups and away from minority groups, most strongly on offensiveness, where intersectional profiles amplify the harm. Third, by comparing base and instruct models we identify instruction-tuning as a possible source of the asymmetry. Demographic conditioning should therefore be used with caution to estimate group judgments: conditioning moves predictions away from the reference distributions of the minority groups the method is often invoked to serve.

Fairness audits in clinical Artificial Intelligence convert continuous fairness metrics into binary pass-or-fail verdicts against operational thresholds, where hospital governance boards, payers, and regulators act on the resulting verdicts. Such audits are repeated over time and across hospital sites, thus the same verdict can flip between pass and fail across audits. Existing uncertainty methods such as Bayesian posteriors, bootstrap confidence intervals, and permutation tests address verdict instability only at the continuous-metric level. Converting metric-level uncertainty into a verdict-stability claim remains a manual step that scales poorly across the (model, metric, attribute) cells an audit covers. Existing uncertainty methods also leave open whether bias-mitigation steps, such as reweighing or per-group threshold shifts, yield a stable passing verdict at the cost of model discrimination measured as AUROC or AUPRC.To address this verdict-stability gap, we propose VFR-Audit, a framework built around the Verdict Flip Rate (VFR), a scalar bounded between 0 and 0.5 that measures the probability of verdict reversal under stratified bootstrap resampling. VFR-Audit reports VFR alongside three reliability axes, namely within-cohort resampling stability, audit-size sensitivity, and cross-hospital verdict agreement via Fleiss' kappa.

We propose a new design of fair classifiers for multi-class classification problems in the presence of vector-valued sensitive attributes. In that scenario each sensitive attribute has multiple values and forms several groups relevant to the fairness consideration. Naturally those groups are overlapping and one should also analyze the interaction of factors. Additionally, the decision makers aided by the classification should not violate individual rights at the expense of satisfying fairness metrics at the group level. We propose an approach using the theory and methods of coherent measures of risk aiming at resolving the fairness challenges. Further, we propose a specialized numerical method for solving the resulting optimization problem. The method scales well with the increase of the number of observations. Additionally, we note that the obtained classifier is robust with respect to corrupted data or to situation when data is scarce. We demonstrate the advantages of the proposed framework in comparison to the support-vector machine framework and other methods handling fairness.

Recent work in fair division has focused on either simultaneously satisfying closely related fairness notions or achieving a single notion across the ex-ante and ex-post worlds. We study the compatibility of two fundamentally different fairness notions: envy-freeness and equitability. For indivisible goods-only and chores-only settings, we study the existence and complexity of simultaneously satisfying their relaxations, revealing sharp contrasts between the two settings. We show that EF1+EQ1 may fail to exist even for normalized binary goods: we construct an instance with 113 agents and 341 goods in which every agent approves exactly 165 goods, but no complete allocation satisfies both notions. Our main algorithmic result computes an EF1+EQ1 allocation for every normalized binary goods instance with at most seven agents. Thus, the smallest number of agents admitting a counterexample lies between 8 and 113, leaving the cases from 8 through 112 unresolved. In sharp contrast, binary chores admit the stronger EFX+EQX guarantee for any number of agents, even without normalization. We further initiate the study of cross-notion ex-ante and ex-post guarantees, asking whether randomized allocations can provide ex-ante guarantees for one notion while preserving ex-post guarantees for another.

Fair representation learning with a continuous sensitive attribute $S$ requires a representation $Z$ that is statistically independent of $S$. Existing criteria, including generalized demographic parity, the expectation of integral probability metrics (EIPM), and mutual information, enforce this independence by averaging a per-value discrepancy between the conditional law $P_{Z \mid S=s}$ and the marginal $P_Z$ over the law of $S$. This approach requires a nonparametric surrogate for the conditional law at each sensitive value. We propose evaluating independence through a single joint discrepancy $d\left(P_{Z, S}, P_Z \otimes P_S\right)$ between the joint law and the product of its marginals. We establish a disintegration identity; on decomposable witness classes it equals the conditional-integral functional that EIPM and generalized demographic parity instantiate. By reaching the same target without the conditional law, this discrepancy can be estimated directly from samples via a dependence statistic rather than conditional smoothing. We take the Hilbert-Schmidt independence criterion (HSIC) as an instance of the joint discrepancy $d$ to investigate the statistical efficiency of replacing the conditional formulation. The HSIC estimator is a closed-form $O\left(n^2\right)$ statistic that converges at the $O\left(n^{-1 / 2}\right)$ rate, in contrast to the nonparametric $O\left(n^{-2 / 5}\right)$ rate of the conditional-route estimators. We prove this instance is equivalent to the conditional maximum mean discrepancy (MMD) integral up to an explicit spectral tail. The corresponding algorithmic implementation, i.e., FRHSIC, attains fairness-accuracy tradeoffs comparable to conditional-route basel es while reducing per-epoch training time.

In fair ranked link prediction, demographic parity ($Δ_\mathrm{DP}$) is a common fairness metric. Yet, Mattos et al. (2025) argue that it fails to detect exposure bias because it ignores where links appear in the ranking. In this study, we reproduce this claim by showing that $Δ_\mathrm{DP}$ can indicate aggregate parity even when some subgroup-pair links are systematically ranked lower than others. The proposed rank-aware Normalized Discounted KL-divergence (NDKL), however, does detect such disparities. We also reproduce the effectiveness of MORAL, a post-processing method that improves exposure-based fairness while maintaining competitive utility. Beyond reproduction, we assess robustness using synthetic homophily settings, categorical sensitive attributes, and additional fairness and utility metrics, including subgroup-pair-adapted Attention-Weighted Rank Fairness (AWRF). Overall, our results show that exposure-based metrics uncover biases hidden by $Δ_\mathrm{DP}$ and that MORAL reduces these biases with minimal utility loss across diverse settings and datasets. We release a corrected, reproducible implementation at https://github.com/Floris93100/reproducing-MORAL.

Fairness evaluation in computer vision commonly relies on aggregate accuracy and demographic subgroup analysis. However, visual models are also sensitive to contextual factors such as illumination, blur, image quality, facial accessories, and appearance attributes. These factors may interact with demographic characteristics, producing hidden subgroups in which performance degrades substantially despite strong aggregate accuracy and apparently acceptable demographic fairness. To address this, we propose the Contextual-Intersectional Fairness Auditing Framework (CIFA), a structured framework for identifying subgroup vulnerabilities arising from interactions between demographic and contextual attributes. CIFA performs demographic, contextual, and contextual-intersectional auditing, followed by worst-group discovery to identify and rank the most vulnerable attribute combinations. We evaluate CIFA on gender classification using ResNet-50 \cite{he2016deep} and ViT-B/16 \cite{dosovitskiy2020image} across FairFace \cite{Karkkainen2021}, CelebA \cite{Liu2015}, and UTKFace \cite{Zhang2017}. Our results show that aggregate accuracy and demographic-only evaluation can mask substantial contextual-intersectional disparities. We further assess several established mitigation strategies through an audit--mitigate--reaudit protocol and find that, although some worst-group disparities are reduced, no single strategy consistently eliminates them across datasets and architectures. These findings establish contextual-intersectional auditing as an important component of fairness evaluation and provide a reproducible framework for discovering, prioritizing, and reassessing hidden subgroup risks in face analysis systems.

Fairness audits for LLM-based recommenders have largely focused on observable outputs, implicitly assuming that stable recommendations reflect stable internal processing. We challenge this assumption with FairGap, the first benchmark to jointly evaluate recommendation fairness at two levels: observable output shift (OBS) and hidden representation shift (IBS), measured through controlled counterfactual identity probes across gender, age, and race. Their relationship is summarized via Representation-Output Alignment (ROA), with quadrant diagnostics for identifying user-level hidden-output mismatch. Applied to six open-weight LLM families across three domains, FairGap reveals pervasive hidden-output decoupling: ROA rarely exceeds 0.22, and a non-negligible user population shows stable outputs despite substantial internal shifts, a mode that output-only audits cannot detect by design. Further, activation steering that reduces IBS by up to 8x simultaneously worsens OBS, demonstrating a fundamental tension between internal and output-level fairness that existing frameworks are unequipped to diagnose.

Data-centric curation pipelines frequently rely on model confidence scores to flag and filter noisy or mislabeled training instances. Evaluating this filtering convention on a large-scale consumer lending sample (LendingClub, N = 1,344,936) uncovers an underlying demographic asymmetry: high-income defaulters are disproportionately classified as label noise relative to low-income defaulters (Cramer's V approximately 0.03-0.07). Re-examining this behavior through the lens of equal opportunity [Hardt et al., 2016] reveals a far more severe discrepancy: a 16.86 percentage point gap in true positive rate (recall) between high- and low-income borrowers who ultimately defaulted. Implementing a sequential feature-blinding methodology allows us to isolate the drivers of this disparity across three distinct mechanisms: (1) direct reliance on self-reported applicant income; (2) algorithmic absorption of upstream institutional bias encoded within origination interest rates; and (3) a residual disparity (3.55 percentage points in cross-validation; 2.56 percentage points on a held-out test partition, Z = -4.04, p < 0.0001) that remains even after purging both income and interest rates from the model. Out-of-sample signed SHAP valuations demonstrate that this residual gap is maintained by structural proxies, most notably loan amount and home ownership status. These empirical findings show that simply blinding an algorithm to sensitive attributes fails to ensure fairness when institutional pricing decisions and behavioral proxy variables collectively reconstruct the omitted signals. We outline the practical implications of these findings for auditing data-centric AI workflows within regulated financial institutions.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as a primary source of information and advice, understanding their alignment to humans in terms of values becomes a pressing concern. A growing literature has leveraged large scale surveys to investigate to what extent LLMs' and humans' stated values and opinions align. With limited exceptions, studied populations have been defined country borders or cultural bounds. Yet, this focus neglects the role that socio-demographic divides may play for value alignment disparities. Relying on the European Social Survey, we address this knowledge gap by considering value alignment displayed with respect to 10 prominent commercial LLMs in terms of 15 socio-demographic variables as well as country of residence. Our analyses reveal that LLMs are indeed unequally aligned to the values of different socio-demographic groups, notably those defined by education, income, occupation and religion. When examining alignment at the individual level, a respondent's country, taken as a stand-alone variable, explains a substantial amount of variation that is on par with the full set of considered socio-demographics. Further disentangling the respective role of country-level and socio-demographic factors, we find they are complementary in explaining value alignment patterns, with their relative weights varying across the subset of questions considered.

Natural Language Processing (NLP) models predicting mental health outcomes rarely specify what they measure: contextual knowledge, emotional content, or syntactic structure. NLP Psychometrics treats psychological prediction from text as a psychometric problem, linking scores to interpretable linguistic evidence and testing beyond the training text format. Nine LLMs, conditioned on controlled personas (cognitive digital shadows), completed psychometric questionnaires with textual explanations per item. We extracted emotional profiles and syntactic-semantic structure via textual forma mentis networks, combined with personality and sociodemographic variables in ablated random forest (RF) regressors, using SHAP to identify which features drove performance and in which direction. Full RF models explained up to 70.8% of variance in life satisfaction (SWLS), 55.7% in depression (PHQ-9), and, for DASS-21, 68.5% depression, 76.0% anxiety, 72.4% stress. Sociodemographics alone explained no meaningful variance in depression, anxiety, or stress, but did so for life satisfaction, where emotion features and income were the strongest predictors; neuroticism and network topology instead dominated depression and anxiety, reversing direction between them. Without retraining, RF models separated diaries from low- and high-score personas ($r$ up to 0.91) and, using only network/emotion features, classified clinical from control participants in real transcripts with up to 68% accuracy. These results show the promise and limits of synthetic data: LLM personas can expose model biases, recover patterns consistent with clinical rumination, and support psychometric prediction from human text without a matched questionnaire, but cannot substitute for human validation. NLP Psychometrics makes these distinctions explicit, measurable, and testable through interpretable AI and network/emotional features.

Prior benchmarking work has shown that a single large language model (LLM), forced to make life-or-death resource-allocation decisions, exhibits measurable demographic bias. Real deployments, however, rarely use a single agent: they use pipelines, with review steps meant to catch exactly this kind of failure. We study what happens to bias when the same decision is distributed across a role-differentiated multi-agent pipeline (assessment, allocation, independent audit) instead of made and checked by one model alone. Using a synthetic disaster-triage simulator with paired cases that are clinically identical except for one demographic attribute, we run 192 episodes (2,304 resolved case pairs) on GPT-4o-mini comparing a single-agent control condition to a nine-agent pipeline under three independently varied pressure dimensions. We find no measurable difference in how often biased outcomes occur between the two conditions (6.9% vs. 6.1%, p = 0.498). We do find a large and significant effect of audit capacity on whether bias is caught: 30.0% of biased outcomes go entirely undetected, rising to 43.8% when the auditor is overloaded and falling to 18.4% when it is not. Decomposing this effect shows it is driven almost entirely by coverage (whether a case is reviewed at all, which collapses from 100.0% to 65.6% under load, p < 0.001) rather than by degraded judgment on the cases that are reviewed (81.6% vs. 85.7%, p = 1.000, direction reversed). A follow-up experiment shows that reordering the audit queue by estimated risk, rather than first-come-first-served, recovers most of the lost coverage under the same capacity constraint (65.6% to 91.7%, p = 0.028). We discuss the implications for any system that adds independent oversight to an LLM agent pipeline under resource constraints, and report the study's limitations honestly: one model, modest sample sizes, and no adversarial replication.

Collaborative machine learning among financial institutions must be both group-fair and robust against deliberate adversarial manipulation. Existing fairness-aware aggregation methods remain formally vulnerable to fairness poisoning: a malicious client maximizing group disparity while preserving accuracy evades accuracy-based Byzantine defenses, and in our threat model FairFed's gap-based weighting can be gamed by an adversary who observes the global fairness score. We present Fairis, a server-side reweighting scheme in which each client's update receives the normalized weight $ω_k = \bar{w}_k / \sum_j \bar{w}_j$ built from the unnormalized score $\bar{w}_k = η- \mathcal{F}_k$, with $\mathcal{F}_k \in [0,1]$ the local Equal Opportunity Difference and $η> 1$ a security parameter. We prove three properties, Monotone Weight Reduction (MWR), Demographic Participation, and Non-Gamesmanship, extend MWR to colluding minority coalitions, and show that combining MWR with server-side norm clipping bounds the adversary's displacement of the global model by $ω_0 C$, strictly decreasing in its own reported disparity. Assuming honest score reporting, an assumption this paper does not discharge, Fairis is the only rule evaluated that guarantees every client strictly positive weight while provably reducing an adversary's weight monotonically in its bias; clipped FairFed can reach a lower weight but guarantees nothing and zeroes a client outright on Taiwan Credit. Against an adversary stealthy enough to evade accuracy-based defenses, within 0.04 accuracy of benign, Fairis cuts its weight by 41 to 54% below a size-blind control on Taiwan. On routine non-IID partitions no rule dominates, and a uniform-weighting ablation shows that containment tracks how far the adversary's score separates from the honest mean, providing none when the honest population is already unfair.

Audits have emerged as a critical instrument for algorithmic governance, providing a mechanism for external scrutiny and governance of machine learning models. However, ensuring the integrity of such assessments remains a challenging issue. For instance in regulatory contexts, audits are typically declared or easily detected, thus enabling model providers to manipulate the process, whether intentionally or inadvertently. This vulnerability is particularly acute in the context of fairness evaluations, in which providers can often infer sensitive attributes and strategically equalize allocation rates between groups to satisfy fairness metrics. In this paper, we introduce a novel audit protocol designed to significantly increase the post-audit detectability of such manipulations by enabling the auditor to query the model in an oblivious manner. Our approach leverages a Private Information Retrieval mechanism to require the provider to label a large set of instances, while preventing it from knowing which subset will ultimately be used for the audit. The protocol is efficient, imposes minimal overhead on the auditor, and requires no modification to the audited model, its training procedure, or its inference pipeline. We provide theoretical guarantees showing that, under this protocol, a provider attempting to hide unfairness must falsify a significantly larger number of responses, thereby increasing both the difficulty and the likelihood of detection of manipulation. Experimental results across representative audit scenarios confirm the effectiveness and practicality of our approach.

Causal discovery recovers directed structure from observational data and is increasingly used in clinical settings to support mechanism reasoning and fairness audits of predictive models. Path-specific counterfactual fairness asks whether a protected attribute influences an outcome through illegitimate pathways, but these estimands are defined relative to a supplied causal graph and therefore inherit whatever errors the discovery step introduces. Discovery methods are routinely scored on aggregate structural metrics that weight all edges equally, and no established evaluation asks whether the specific pathway an audit depends on survives discovery---or what the audit reports when that pathway is missing. Here we show that full-graph Graph-of-Thoughts reasoning yields acyclic discovered graphs that are structurally competitive with large language model (LLM) baselines, yet that structural fidelity alone does not guarantee fairness-faithful audits. We introduce GoT-CD, in which the reasoning unit is a complete candidate edge set: multiple graphs are generated in parallel, scored by a deterministic validity function, and merged under a hard union constraint that forbids invented edges, with greedy projection enforcing a DAG before commitment. GoT-CD returns a valid DAG on all five reported benchmarks and achieves the best DAG-valid F1 score among LLM methods on Asia, Alzheimer's, and COVID-Respiratory datasets. On an Alzheimer's benchmark with known unfair path, a post-hoc path-specific audit shows that five of eight discovered graphs recover no path from the sensitive attribute to the outcome and therefore report a null overall effect while mediated effects persist, necessitating downstream path-specific fairness analysis along with structural discovery.

Fairness evaluation concerns not only what a model produces, but also what its outputs ought to be compared against. When a model generates "a CEO in the United States," the prompt leaves demographic realization to the model. Existing group fairness definitions assume that sensitive attributes are given on the input side. Generative audits instead examine output-side demographic composition, yet the targets they compare it against are typically supplied rather than justified. The upstream question is what the target distribution should be. We formalize this missing-target problem for demographic-value-unspecified generation and decompose target construction into four commitments: the evaluative object, prior admissibility, allocation, and operationalization. In this framework, we admit the geographic prior under a geographic-membership interpretation for the declared public-world use. The occupational prior, under an incumbency interpretation, requires an independently defended objective such as workforce-composition fidelity. Instantiating this construction in AP-Bench, we find substantial distribution divergence from geography-derived targets, ranging from 0.508 to 0.606 on a 0-to-1 scale. Replacing each geography-derived target with an equal-category comparator, while holding generations and measurement fixed, produces model-specific mean absolute cell-level $\mathrm{JSD}_2$ changes ranging from 0.279 to 0.355. Target construction is therefore not a preliminary to fairness evaluation but a component of it. What we supply is not a universal target, but a framework that makes explicit the justification required before a distribution can serve as a fairness standard.

The challenge of fair deepfake detection (FDD) has attracted increasing attention. Existing fairness-enhanced detectors often suffer from suboptimal generalization to unseen manipulations and fairness across demographic groups. They are typically developed and evaluated on demographically imbalanced distributions, resulting in biased predictions toward minority groups. In this paper, we construct a novel demographically balanced FDD benchmark to train and evaluate the fairness of detectors under both balanced and imbalanced population scenarios. Additionally, we introduce a novel expression and demographic perceptual vision-language model, termed FairForensics, for generalizable fair deepfake detection. FairForensics conducts face forgery generalization enhancement and demographic-aware fairness regularization. During face forgery generalization enhancement, built upon the novel observation of significant distribution differences between pristine and forged expression vectors, we design an expression encoder to capture high-level expression-guided forgery patterns, and an expression-perceptual visual encoder that integrates global appearance and expression forgery features while mitigating identity bias using an identity-aware patch perturbation module. Under demographic-aware fairness regularization, we propose a demographic-guided language encoder to extract population-aware global language embeddings, which boosts the decoupling of forgery features from demographic information via vision-language alignment. We devise a population-aware prototype fairness objective to enforce both inter-class separability and intra-class alignment across demographic subgroups. Extensive experiments on our balanced demographic benchmark show that our method achieves the state-of-the-art in terms of generalization and fairness.

Deploying ML models in regulated decision-making (credit underwriting, fraud detection, loan approval) requires demonstrating fairness and robustness to auditors without exposing model weights or customer data. We address this attestation problem for U.S. bank supervision under SR 11-7 and OCC 2011-12 guidance. We present a chunked zero-knowledge circuit design that attests an aggregated fairness statistic - the demographic-parity gap - on committed, nonce-sampled batches of real 2022 HMDA mortgage data, and demonstrate it end-to-end: 32,768 rows, 32 independently verified zkSNARK proofs, aggregated attested gap within 0.0029 of the true held-out value, per-chunk proving under 4 seconds. We also demonstrate extensibility by attesting a second control on the identical architecture - expected calibration error at 10 bins - with all 32 chunks verified, per-chunk proving at about 14.7 seconds, and attested ECE within 0.00037 of the plaintext value on the same committed rows. We compare this design against two alternatives - a flat summation circuit, which overflows past a few thousand rows, and a tree-reduction circuit, numerically exact but intractable to compile - and find the chunked design is the only one that reached this scale. We discovered and root-caused a genuine data-quality failure (a sentinel-code outlier distorting circuit proving and the fairness statistic itself) and resolved it with a published preprocessing specification. We also propose a fuller mapping from SR 11-7 and OCC 2011-12 control language to zero-knowledge statements (nine control elements spanning soundness, calibration, robustness, and drift), a nonce-based sampling protocol resisting bank-side cherry-picking, and a threat model for deployment, proposed as design work, not implemented results. Two controls, one model class, one task are demonstrated end-to-end; the rest is scoped and left as future work.

Fairness audits are increasingly mandated in high-stakes applications such as hiring, lending, and automated decision-making. Recent work has established fundamental impossibility results for black-box fairness auditing, showing that sufficiently expressive models can evade any auditing strategy. We complement these results by quantifying the extent of unavoidable post-audit manipulation under finite audit resources. We formulate fairness auditing as a min-max optimization between a computationally unbounded company and a budget-constrained auditor. We study two auditing regimes: (i) a budgeted auditor that certifies fairness using a fixed-size audit set, and (ii) a budgeted α-tolerant auditor that additionally requires the audit set to estimate the fairness of the certified model within an α approximation. For both settings, we derive explicit lower bounds on the worst-case post-audit demographic parity deviation as functions of the audit budget, group imbalance, and fairness tolerance. Finally, we empirically illustrate these theoretical limits using simple audit-set construction heuristics with linear and neural network classifiers. Our results demonstrate that increasing audit resources reduces, but does not eliminate, the scope for post-audit manipulation, highlighting fundamental limitations of finite-budget fairness certification.

Automatic speech recognition (ASR) for cleft lip and palate (CLP) speech is difficult because acoustic and articulatory patterns vary across severity levels. This variability reduces the performance of pretrained ASR systems, and conventional fine-tuning may not generalize well under low-resource, heterogeneous CLP conditions. This work proposes Normal-Anchored First-Order Model-Agnostic Meta-Learning (NA-FOMAML) for adapting Whisper to CLP speech. The method uses a first-order bilevel meta-learning framework in which normal speech is used in the inner loop as a stable support condition, while CLP severity groups are used in the outer loop to improve post-adaptation robustness. This design aims to reduce the performance gap between normal and pathological speech. Experiments are conducted on the NMCPC and AIISH datasets using four normal-anchored training configurations. Frozen encoder, full encoder, and selected Whisper encoder-layer tuning strategies are evaluated, including layers 0--5, 4--11, 6--11, and 8--11, with decoder and projection-head adaptation. Results show that outer-loop training with only normal speech is insufficient. For NMCPC, full encoder tuning with Normal to Normal+Mild+Moderate gives WERs of 4.40%, 5.53%, 16.14%, and 52.07% for normal, mild, moderate, and severe speech. For AIISH, full encoder tuning with Normal to Normal+Mild+Moderate+Severe gives WERs of 2.48%, 19.66%, 14.05%, and 57.50%. A transcription-based phoneme-category analysis shows that severe CLP speech has high error rates across fricatives, affricates, nasals, liquids, plosives, and vowels. Overall, NA-FOMAML improves cross-severity robustness, but severe speech still requires severity-aware sampling, phoneme-aware loss functions, and augmentation targeting pressure consonant and resonance-related distortions.

Many real-world systems rely on predictive models to inform decisions, and fairness concerns arise in both the prediction and decision stages. We introduce end-to-end fairness optimization (E2EFO) as a unifying framework that integrates fairness across the prediction-to-decision pipeline. We focus on resource allocation with group-based fairness: the prediction task estimates allocation impacts while limiting accuracy disparity across groups, and the decision task distributes those impacts equitably by optimizing a group-based alpha-fairness measure. Within this framework, we propose fair decision-focused learning (FDFL), a training paradigm that jointly accounts for prediction accuracy, prediction fairness, and decision regret -- the loss in decision fairness due to imperfect predictions. FDFL trains the predictor by gradient descent, combining the objective gradients through multi-task learning techniques. The core computational challenge is the decision Jacobian with respect to the predictor parameters: we derive exact closed-form formulas for a tractable class of fair allocation and apply a differentiable optimization layer in the general case. We further establish a finite-sample generalization bound for the scalarized FDFL objective. Numerical experiments on a healthcare-based single resource allocation and a synthetic multiple resource allocation illustrate the value of jointly accounting for prediction fairness and decision fairness in prediction-informed decision-making.

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

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly involved in the distribution of scarce resources, raising concerns about biased allocations based on characteristics like race and gender. Recent LLM audits have produced inconsistent results, however, finding evidence of both positive and negative discrimination towards women and ethnic minorities, even for the same models. We show that this disagreement can arise from differences in audit format and introduce FairFund-Bench, a benchmark that systematically varies key features of previous audit designs: the evaluation task (rating, ranking, or allocation), comparison context (single or multi-stimulus), and whether the audit is transparent or disguised. The benchmark comprises 600 requests for financial assistance created from human-authored templates (calibrated against 1.3M real GoFundMe campaigns) across three domains, four race and two gender categories, and five causal framings of need derived from welfare deservingness theory. Across 14 models, audit format changes the direction of bias: models advantage minorities when rating claimants individually but penalize some groups when ranking them side by side. Bias magnitude, though small overall, is several times greater in disguised audits than in transparent ones, where, faced with appeals differing only in claimants' names, models overwhelmingly split funds equally. Causal framing effects, by contrast, exceed demographic effects by roughly an order of magnitude and are consistent across models and audit formats, indicating that current LLMs robustly reproduce human deservingness evaluations. The benchmark scores models on four criteria (demographic bias, deservingness alignment, cross-task consistency, and cross-context consistency), is publicly available, and can be readily adapted to other substantive domains.

Clinical risk models routinely achieve strong aggregate performance while producing materially different error rates across patient subgroups. Audit pipelines have been proposed to catch this, but their components are rarely stress-tested, so it is unclear which parts of an audit can be trusted and under what conditions. We present KAISEN, a five-phase audit pipeline covering subgroup stratification, disparity measurement, mechanism diagnostics, post-hoc mitigation, and drift monitoring, evaluated to the point of failure on a synthetic benchmark of 16 disease tasks, 15 social-determinant axes from Healthy People 2030, and three prespecified intersections. Four findings follow. (i) Significance tracks each axis's gap against its own minimum detectable effect: rank correlation between significance count and raw equalized-odds difference (EOD) across the 15 axes is rho = 0.56, rising to rho = 0.78 once EOD is standardized by that floor. (ii) Per-group threshold optimization reduces EOD in 48 of 48 held-out runs (paired delta = -0.285, 95% CI [-0.313, -0.252]), while group-wise Platt scaling -- the better calibrator -- behaves as a coin flip on EOD (19 of 48 runs improved, 95% CI [0.26, 0.55]) with mean effect near zero, so what an audit should report is the variance, not the average. (iii) The mechanism diagnostic classifies 144 of 144 controlled cases correctly but recovers none of 48 model-driven cases under proxy misspecification, with no signal that it failed. (iv) CUSUM failures and false alarms track cohort realization far more than disease: at the reference threshold, all 27 false alarms and 7 of 8 missed shifts come from different seeds (chi-squared p = 0.002), so a threshold tuned on one cohort fails to transfer. All results are synthetic with known ground truth and do not establish clinical validity. Code, artifacts, and scripts reproducing every number are released.

Clustered federated learning benefits from organizing heterogeneous participants into coalitions that train coalition-specific models, but such clustering is sustainable only if participants prefer their assigned coalition and the required transfers are affordable. We develop a transferable-surplus model separating learning benefit, system cost, participant cost, and monetary transfers; an allocation rule converts coalition surplus into hedonic preferences, and weak budget feasibility guarantees nonnegative retained coordinator surplus. For symmetric pairwise allocations the induced game is an exact potential game: a Nash-stable partition exists, every strict better-response process converges, and with destination consent accepted better responses reach an individually stable partition. We characterize feasibility of bounded pair incentives and verify the exponentially many budget constraints in polynomial oracle time when retained slack is submodular. Decomposing welfare into participant potential and retained slack yields additive and multiplicative price-of-stability guarantees, the latter asymptotically tight; exact balance gives welfare-optimal stability only on the pairwise-representable class, and budget feasibility alone permits unbounded welfare loss. Global potential maximization equals weighted maximum-agreement correlation clustering, and approximation followed by stabilization satisfies an end-to-end welfare bound governed by retained slack and negative-edge mass, attained by an explicit construction. In a preregistered five-seed CIFAR-10 study the mechanism reaches the certified estimated-table welfare optimum on every primary instance, equal-surplus sharing has no Nash-stable outcome on three, and pairwise validation gain gives far more reliable pair signs than gradient alignment.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as synthetic users, stand-ins for human respondents whose simulated answers feed product, policy, and market decisions. We ask when this substitution is valid and when it fails, and package the answer as an evaluation framework for intelligent synthetic-user systems. A single protocol, run across four models spanning two families and an 8B-to-frontier capability range, is applied to two independent domains of real human-response data: U.S. general social attitudes (General Social Survey) and cross-cultural values (World Values Survey). Every model is benchmarked against a suite of non-LLM baselines fit on held-out human data. Under demographic prompting and the survey-simulation protocols we test, two failures replicate across both domains, all four models, and both families. First, at the individual level no LLM beats even the strongest baseline; on cross-cultural values every model falls well below it, and the gap survives distance-aware and proper scoring. Second, models systematically over-determine demographics, treating identity as far more predictive of attitudes than it is among real people, a distortion present for nearly every question-group combination and robust to a coding-invariant measure. Neither failure is remedied by a larger, more capable model. A decision-impact analysis shows why this matters in practice: on a segment-targeting task the models inflate between-segment gaps two to fourfold, would direct a team to the wrong segment in half of U.S. and most cross-cultural cases, and manufacture segment splits that do not exist in real people. We make the cross-domain benchmark and the evaluation framework available on request, so that teams can determine in advance when synthetic-user evidence is safe for decision support and when it is not.

City-scale autonomous vehicle fleet coordinators are typically optimized for aggregate travel time, yet fleet averages conceal how delay is distributed across trips and regions. We conduct a distributional audit on three real-city road-network and taxi-demand datasets from Manhattan, Chicago, and San Francisco. The audit reveals pervasive trip-length inequity whose direction depends on the city and coordinator. After accounting for trip length, spatial inequity becomes more pronounced as demand grows and is consistently stronger when trips are grouped by origin rather than destination. These findings motivate SPatially Aware RErouting (SPARE), a budgeted online coordination framework that assigns limited replanning capacity to delayed vehicles and redirects them using recently observed waiting pressure. SPARE provides a per-review decision guarantee and explicitly bounds online route updates. Experiments on all three datasets against six representative baselines show that SPARE delivers the strongest joint efficiency-fairness performance while retaining city-scale scalability. The results demonstrate that bounded congestion-responsive rerouting improves performance and equity without full-fleet replanning.

Stereo matching and surface normal estimation are fundamental tasks in 3D vision. However, existing feed-forward stereo methods still struggle to produce reliable predictions in challenging regions, mainly due to the lack of strong geometric priors. In this paper, we propose $\textbf{GeoStereo}$, a unified stereo geometry estimation framework that leverages powerful diffusion priors to jointly predict disparity and surface normals. Specifically, GeoStereo couples a feed-forward stereo matching pipeline with a diffusion-based normal estimation branch. To enable effective interaction between the two tasks, we introduce a disparity to normal initialization strategy and construct a warp to left-view condition for the diffusion process. This coupled design allows the diffusion branch to provide strong structural priors that enhance disparity estimation in ill-posed regions, while the feed-forward branch offers reliable geometric guidance for accurate normal prediction. Extensive experiments show that GeoStereo performs reliably in challenging scenarios, including low-light environments, highly reflective surfaces, and transparent objects. Under zero-shot settings, it achieves Rank-1 disparity estimation on multiple benchmarks, including KITTI and NYUv2, and delivers the best normal estimation accuracy on many real indoor benchmarks, such as iBims-1 and ScanNet. Project page: https://qz-wei.github.io/GeoStereo.github.io/

We study a restless multi-armed bandit (RMAB) problem for a stochastic deadline scheduling application. RMAB problems are solved using the Whittle index policy. The goal in RMAB is to maximize the expected cumulative discounted reward maximization. The Whittle index policy maximizes reward, but is not fair among two classes. In this paper, we introduce fairness criteria and study an outcome-fair model for RMAB which allows fairness for jobs and users structurally disadvantaged demographic classes. We formulate an outcome fair stochastic deadline scheduling problem as RMAB, and we develop the outcome fair Whittle index policy. We define a virtual queue mechanism that dynamically enforces long-term completion rate guaranties across demographic groups. We analyze a standard Whittle index policy and the outcome-fair index policy. We demonstrate the performance of our algorithms with numerical examples. We compare policies---Whittle index policy (no fairness), input-fairness Whittle index policy, outcome fair Whittle index policy. We observe that the outcome-fair Whittle index policy provides better fairness among classes compared to other policies. We demonstrate a trade off between fairness and profit. This decreases as the server capacity increases.

As constrained learning becomes increasingly common, models are trained under explicit feasibility requirements to enforce fairness, safety, robustness, regulariza- tion, and physics or logic constraints. Understanding how training samples in- fluence the model solution (e.g., learned parameters) is crucial for interpretability and robustness. The classical influence function (IF) estimates sample contribu- tions via local sensitivity analysis, measuring how the solution changes when a specific training sample is perturbed or removed. However, IF becomes unreli- able in constrained settings: data perturbations can reshape both the objective and the feasible region, leading to estimates that violate feasibility. In response, we propose the Directional Influence Function (DIF), a novel estimator that explicitly incorporates these constraints into influence estimation. DIF formulates the opti- mality conditions of constrained learning as a variational inequality (VI) and ana- lyzes how perturbing training data affects this VI. We validate DIF on constrained linear regression and demonstrate that it recovers leave-one-out retraining results, whereas IF and penalty-based IF exhibit significant bias. We further apply DIF to fairness-constrained CNNs, where DIF accurately predicts test loss changes under data removal and aligns closely with actual retraining. Our results establish DIF as an efficient and reliable tool for data attribution in constrained learning.

We study an online variant of discrete fair division under generalized assignment budget constraints. Goods arrive one at a time and must be assigned irrevocably to a feasible agent or to charity, which holds all unallocated goods, while fairness is evaluated only against budget-feasible subsets of every recipient's bundle. We first show that, without additional structure, no deterministic online algorithm can guarantee any fixed approximation to feasible envy-freeness, even in highly symmetric instances. We then identify bounded density spread as a structural condition that restores meaningful guarantees, obtaining approximation algorithms for arbitrary item sizes and showing that, under common valuations and sufficiently small goods, these guarantees can be strengthened to an optimal deterministic frontier. We further study resource augmentation, where the online algorithm is allowed slightly larger budgets than the fairness benchmark, and characterize the resulting improvement in the achievable guarantees. Finally, we develop a learning-augmented framework based on predicting joint value-size types, proving consistency under perfect predictions, robustness to prediction error, and showing that separate predictions of value and size marginals are insufficient to recover strong fairness guarantees.

Minimum-exposure constraints arise in recommendation, content curation, and regulated allocation when each provider, arm, or group must receive guaranteed exposure inside a period rather than only in aggregate. We study stochastic bandits with exact exposure floors and show that the right object is a rounding problem: a fractional fair schedule is realized as integral pulls, and the exposure error is exactly a discrepancy vector. The main contribution is a blockwise model with time-varying floors. BDQ-UCB satisfies every block floor deterministically and has fair regret governed by the nonmandatory budget $R$, not the horizon $T$, with high-probability regret $O(\sqrt{KR\log(KT)})$. A MOSS residual variant attains $O(\sqrt{KR})$, and a matching lower bound gives the minimax rate $Θ(\sqrt{KR})$, even with positive mandatory exposure; a kl-UCB$^{++}$ residual rule adds instance-dependent optimality. The formulation becomes essential for overlapping group floors: per-arm rounding can violate a group constraint by $Ω(s)$ in the group size, whereas Beck--Fiala null-space rounding meets every group floor within the block budget with violation below the arm degree $t$, and composes with UCB at the same $R$-parametrized regret. For learned group plans, we close disjoint systems at $\widetildeΘ(\sqrt{KT})$, give a dual-ledger decomposition explaining why naive index rules fail under overlap, and prove a plan-sampling rule that is pathwise feasible under an initial cover-slack condition and attains a conditional $\widetilde O(\sqrt{KT})$ guarantee, leaving the condition-free overlap rate open. Experiments on synthetic floors, MovieLens-100k genre exposure, and deployment stress tests show exact feasibility without penalty tuning and regret competitive with tuned Lagrangian baselines.

Machine unlearning has emerged as a tool for removing personal data from trained models to comply with recent AI regulations. To evaluate unlearning effectiveness in multimodal large language models (MLLMs), prior works fine-tune models on fictitious identities, simulating unlearning requests on subsets of these IDs, which are typically uniformly distributed. However, in realistic scenarios, people from different demographic groups may request to be unlearned at different frequencies, potentially altering the model's internal beliefs for these groups and leading to biased behaviors. To fill this gap, we propose FAIRGET, the first Visual Question Answering benchmark that evaluates unlearning under unbalanced, realistic, forget requests. These requests are designed to simulate multiple realistic scenarios, ranging from simple to challenging settings, that lead to biased unlearned models if fairness is not accounted for. Additionally, we propose FAUN, the first unlearning algorithm for MLLMs that forgets unlearning data while preserving model fairness. FAUN exploits a bias-aware activation steering mechanism to unlearn identities while accounting for the unbalanced nature of the forget data. Experiments on FAIRGET and the established FIUBench demonstrate our method's superiority both in unlearning quality and fairness.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly shaping how we consume information and form our worldview. This raises concerns beyond bias in AI: do LLMs grasp the emotional nuances conveyed via textual framing? In this work, we empirically evaluate how well an array of LLMs aligns with human emotional perception. Considering news headlines covering political and geopolitical conflicts, both human participants (n = 3011, a representative sample of the U.K. adult population, via a YouGov survey) and seven LLMs answered whether headlines evoked sympathy for a specified side in a conflict. We find that the correlation between AI and human evaluations varies across models, ranging from very high (0.789, GPT-5.2) to medium (0.4 ,Mistral Large 2512). Crucially, the leading models are broadly aligned with human judgments across all demographic subgroups, including age, gender, level of education, prior geopolitical knowledge, and participants' predispositions regarding the conflict, although there are statistically significant differences between groups. This research, with its robust design and large, demographically diverse dataset, offers the most comprehensive evaluation of LLMs' comprehension of news framing to date. Findings highlight an important, often-ignored aspect of differential alignment: even when aggregate performance is high, AI alignment is not universal -- it may correspond differently with demographic features and cultural norms. Considering or ignoring the need for differential alignment may therefore have significant implications for the development of ethical and useful AI systems.

Fair clustering aims to make cluster assignments independent of sensitive attributes, but this goal becomes challenging when multiple sensitive attributes jointly define many subgroups. In such settings, directly extending existing fair clustering algorithms is computationally expensive or numerically unstable, especially when the number of subgroups grows exponentially and some subgroups contain only a few instances. To address these challenges, we define a subgroup-fairness gap for clustering and derive a covariance-based surrogate that exactly matches this gap. We then introduce a continuous relaxation of the surrogate, enabling efficient gradient-based optimization and yielding our proposed algorithm, COVA-FC. We also show that subgroup fairness alone does not imply marginal fairness, and extend our framework to capture a subgroup-marginal-fairness gap. Experiments on benchmark datasets show that COVA-FC achieves competitive cost-fairness trade-offs and improves computational efficiency over existing baselines in both subgroup and higher-order marginal settings.

Air pollution and climate-related stressors are increasingly important concerns for respiratory health, especially in settings with unequal environmental exposure and healthcare capacity. This study evaluates an interpretable machine learning framework for predicting respiratory disease rates and air-quality status using structured country-level weekly data. Two supervised learning tasks were considered: regression of respiratory disease rate per 100,000 population and binary classification of air-quality status. Nine regression models and nine classification models were compared using nested cross-validation. Model interpretation was conducted using SHAP values, and subgroup analysis was performed across income levels and geographic regions. The results showed that PM2.5 concentration was the dominant predictor of respiratory disease rate, with linear and regularized linear models achieving the strongest regression performance. For air-quality classification, models achieved high balanced accuracy when PM2.5 was included, but performance decreased substantially when PM2.5 was removed, indicating strong dependence on pollutant-related information. SHAP analysis showed that, without PM2.5, socioeconomic and meteorological variables such as GDP per capita, precipitation, and healthcare access became more influential. Subgroup analysis showed similar aggregate regression error across income groups, but PM2.5 contributed more strongly to predictions in lower-middle-income countries. These results show that model accuracy alone is not sufficient for climate-health prediction. Interpretable models can help identify dominant pollution-related signals, test whether results depend on key pollutant variables, and show whether prediction patterns differ across socioeconomic groups.

Differential privacy (DP) is increasingly deployed to limit membership inference risk in machine-learning systems. Prior work has shown that DP-SGD can widen accuracy disparities across demographic groups, but this framing treats fairness as a purely outcome-side concern. We argue that privacy cost, the information leakage borne by each group, is itself a form of harm, and adopt a compensatory-fairness framework in which a group that involuntarily bears greater privacy exposure is owed proportionally greater benefit from the system. From this principle we derive the \emph{Privacy-Cost Equity Ratio} (PCER), a group fairness metric defined as a group's positive prediction rate normalized by its per-group overfitting gap. By a standard membership inference bound, this overfitting gap upper-bounds each group's vulnerability to inference attacks, making PCER a conservative measure of benefit relative to exposure. PCER needs only per-group train and test accuracy (no shadow models), making it a practical post-hoc audit tool. We evaluate PCER alongside standard fairness metrics across six benchmark--attribute combinations spanning tabular and NLP domains, under DP-SGD at a range of privacy budgets, and validate the overfitting-gap proxy against a direct threshold membership-inference attack. The results reveal patterns that outcome-based metrics miss. On COMPAS, PCER uncovers a persistent double disadvantage: the protected group bears both greater privacy exposure and worse predictive outcomes, something demographic parity gap masks entirely. Sensitivity analysis shows very strong privacy guarantees collapse both groups' overfitting to a numerical floor, rendering exposure-based audits uninformative in that regime. Together, these findings show that fairness audits of privacy-preserving systems must account for who bears the cost of protection, not only who benefits from its outcomes.

Per-subgroup fairness audits of medical image classifiers face a sample-size problem: minority subgroups in held-out test sets have so few samples that the resulting confidence intervals on per-subgroup performance are wider than the bias the audit is meant to detect. We argue that a demographically-conditioned synthetic generator can do both: mitigate bias on the training side and detect bias on the evaluation side. Working on COVID-19 chest CT classification with an end-to-end fine-tuned Stable Diffusion 2.1 generator, we make two findings. For bias mitigation (training), a demographically-balanced synthetic cohort is most useful as a pretraining prior, not as joint augmentation: with the same fixed data, sequential pretraining followed by fine-tuning substantially outperforms joint augmentation, and the resulting classifier surpasses the full-real baseline at \sim$$100\times real-data efficiency. For bias detection (evaluation), across five synthetic minority cohorts and five classifier seeds, the synthetic estimator reproduces the subgroup ranking of a well-powered real oracle (Spearman $ρ= 1.00$ on MCC and Recall) and gives the more reliable per-cell estimate where the small real test set runs out of samples. The synthetic cohort is therefore most useful in exactly the cells that fairness audits care about, as both a fix for and a measure of subgroup bias.

Light-field disparity estimation requires global consistency in smooth or textureless regions and local precision near occlusion boundaries, thin structures, and abrupt depth transitions. Existing methods address these requirements through EPI matching, cost-volume or focal-stack construction, view aggregation, or direct convolutional regression, often relying on local windows, discrete disparity hypotheses, memory-intensive volumes, or attention-based aggregation. We instead formulate disparity estimation at the field level, predicting disparity from globally and locally updated EPI-derived latent features without explicitly constructing a disparity volume. We introduce FreqLF, an EPI-guided Fourier-local framework that encodes angular parallax cues from horizontal and vertical EPI stacks together with central-view appearance features. These cues are projected into a latent field and updated through stacked hybrid Fourier-local layers. Fourier low-mode updates enable global feature interaction, while local convolutions preserve spatial variations needed for fine disparity detail. A coordinate-conditioned Gaussian-mixture decoder then predicts disparity, using the mixture mean as the final estimate. Experiments on the HCI 4D Light Field Benchmark show that FreqLF approaches the accuracy of strong supervised baselines while avoiding explicit cost-volume construction in the base model. Ablations confirm the complementary roles of the Fourier and local branches, and scaling experiments demonstrate practical behavior across spatial resolutions. These results suggest that Fourier-local latent field learning is a competitive alternative for light-field disparity estimation. The code will be published soon.