Fairness Constraints

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

In bandit problems, standard regret-minimizing algorithms treat exploration as an amortized cost, which can expose early participants to unfair ex-ante losses in settings such as clinical trials. Recent work addresses this by evaluating the sequence of per-round expected rewards through the generalized $p$-mean, interpolating between utilitarian welfare ($p=1$), Nash welfare ($p\to0$), and Rawlsian fairness ($p\to-\infty$). Although tight guarantees are known for $p\ge0$, the strictly fair regime $q=-p>0$ remains unresolved because negative-power means are dominated by the smallest per-round rewards. For $σ$-sub-Gaussian rewards with nonnegative means, the best prior algorithm relied on uniform early exploration and achieved regret $O(k^{(q+1)/2}/\sqrt{T})$, while the only general lower bound was the classical $Ω(σ\sqrt{k/T})$. Thus it was unclear whether the extra dependence on $k$ was intrinsic to strict fairness or an artifact of uniform exploration. We close this gap by identifying the exact polynomial price of strict fairness. Using a needle-in-haystack construction, we prove an algorithm-independent lower bound $Ω(σ\sqrt{k^{\max(1,q)}/T})$; for $q>1$, this shows that the penalty $k^{q/2}$ is information-theoretically unavoidable. We then introduce \textsf{UCB-HARE} (Harmonic Anchored Rank Exploration), which replaces uniform exploration with an inverse-weighted harmonic rank schedule protected by a certified positive-mean anchor. Its regret is $\widetilde{O}(σ\sqrt{k^{\max(1,q)}/T})$, matching the lower bound up to logarithmic factors. Experiments on synthetic instances confirm that \textsf{UCB-HARE} improves over uniform-exploration baselines, with gains increasing as $q$ grows.

Pricing food products to balance profitability with consumer welfare is a central challenge for retailers. Dynamic pricing is widely used to maximize revenue, yet most pricing models optimize business objectives while overlooking consumer fairness. This paper studies the risk of consumer exploitation under dynamic food pricing in Canada and proposes a methodology that embeds fairness constraints directly into retail sales forecasting. We model total retail trade sales with a log--log Autoregressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) specification, in which the coefficient on a product price is a sales elasticity, and pose the pricing problem as maximizing forecast sales subject to price bounds anchored to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). We solve this problem with both Linear Programming (LP) and Simulated Annealing (SA), under single-product and multi-product configurations. A key finding is that the fitted nominal elasticities are positive. As a result, an unconstrained sales-maximizer would push every price to its upper bound, and the CPI ceiling is the safeguard that prevents this. Simulated Annealing instead settles on conservative, interior prices that lower consumer cost while still meeting the sales target. We benchmark forecast accuracy against naive, seasonal-naive, ARIMA, and SARIMA baselines, and a CPI-deflated re-specification shows that the positive nominal elasticities are largely an inflation-driven artifact. The result is a transparent, fairness-aware pricing framework.

Warning: This paper contains several toxic and offensive statements. While reasoning generally improves fairness in recent large language models (LLMs), failures persist. In this work, we identify a failure mode, deductive stereotyping, in which models apply population-level statistical regularities to individual cases, producing logically coherent yet socially biased inferences. We provide a statistical interpretation of this phenomenon. To steer models toward fairness-aware reasoning, we propose a reasoning-time injection framework. We further introduce Fair-GCG to systematically discover effective injection phrases. Injection phrases discovered by Fair-GCG improve performance across multiple fairness benchmarks, generalize from smaller to larger LLMs, improves reasoning-level fairness, reduces bias in open-ended generation, and transfer to real-world fairness-sensitive tasks.

We study the problem of fair online resource allocation, motivated by applications such as refugee resettlement and airline scheduling, where agents arrive sequentially and must be assigned to facilities with limited capacities. We introduce a model that maximizes the overall welfare subject to resource constraints and a Lipschitz fairness requirement, which ensures that similar agents arriving in the same batch receive similar expected outcomes. We first analyze the offline problem, proving that the value of the optimal fair allocation is at least an $Ω(1/γ)$ fraction of the optimal unfair allocation, where $γ$ is the fairness coefficient, thereby bounding the price of fairness. For the online setting, we propose an algorithm based on dual mirror descent that enforces fairness constraints within batches while estimating optimal dual variables. We prove that this algorithm achieves sublinear regret relative to the optimal offline fluid benchmark. Finally, we validate our theoretical results using real-world data from the Refugee Economies Programme, demonstrating the algorithm's performance and examining the trade-offs between welfare maximization and fairness enforcement.

Fairness in insurance pricing remains a long-standing and deeply debated puzzle. On one hand, insurers, driven by profitability considerations, set premiums that differentiate across individual risks to achieve actuarial fairness. On the other hand, insurance serves a critical societal function by pooling risks across a population, motivating cross-subsidization among groups to promote solidarity fairness. The tension between these two competing notions of fairness makes insurance pricing inherently complex, particularly in modern settings where granular data allow for increasingly fine risk differentiation and regulators face growing pressure to protect vulnerable groups. To address this challenge, we propose an $α$-\textbf{F}air \textbf{I}ndividual \textbf{S}olvent \textbf{P}remium ($α$-FISP) framework for insurance pricing that explicitly captures the trade-off between actuarial and solidarity fairness while guaranteeing solvency, a fundamental requirement in insurance operations. We formulate the pricing problem as a constrained optimization task, where actuarially fair premiums are adjusted subject to budget constraints on cross-subsidization within each risk class. This formulation naturally yields a family of solutions parameterized by $α$, tracing a continuum between purely actuarial and purely solidarity-based pricing and enabling decision-makers to select an operating point along this fairness spectrum. We derive theoretical guarantees for the proposed framework. Numerical experiments show that $α$-FISP is computationally tractable and aligns well with the U.S. regulatory regimes featuring heterogeneous state-level fairness requirements.

The abundance of pre-trained diffusion models provides an opportunity for composition. Combining several models, however, runs the risk of one model dominating or models disagreeing with each other. Here, we propose Divide-and-Denoise, a method for coordinating multiple pre-trained diffusion models during sampling. Much like managing a specialized workforce, our method creates a fair but efficient division of labor across models. Central to our method is the notion of an allocation which defines the responsibility of each model to every region of the noisy sample. At every timestep, we then denoise by (i) updating the allocation by solving a fair division game, where we divide the sample into regions that maximize total utility under fairness constraints, and (ii) aligning the models with this allocation, where we guide each model to denoise within its assigned region. This leads to a new composite denoising process that evolves in tandem with a division process. We evaluate Divide-and-Denoise on conditional image generation. Across several quality metrics, including the GenEval benchmark, our method outperforms baselines and resolves common failures including missing objects and mismatched attributes. Experiments show that Divide-and-Denoise utilizes each model's expertise without neglecting any other model.

Data-driven pricing is increasingly prevalent in sectors such as airlines, lending, insurance, and retail. By learning demand models from customer features and setting prices accordingly, these systems may generate discriminatory outcomes that raise fairness concerns. This leads to fundamental questions - how and where should systems incorporate fairness considerations in the pricing pipeline, and how does it ultimately affect societal outcomes? To answer these, we study a stylized model where a seller has a two-stage decision pipeline comprising linear demand model estimation followed by price optimization. The seller considers fairness notions in training loss, price, and demand, under both parity-wise and Rawlsian perspectives. We show that equalizing training loss across consumer groups leads to multiple solutions, which in turn can result in undesirable outcomes despite being a standard approach in fair machine learning. Focusing instead on fairness applied directly to prices or demand, we compare two strategies that enforce fairness in either the demand estimation stage or the price optimization stage. For parity-wise fairness, we characterize when each strategy yields higher social welfare under small fairness levels. We show that when market sizes and prices in the dataset are similar, imposing price fairness in the estimation stage is more beneficial to consumers, whereas imposing demand fairness in the optimization stage yields better consumer outcomes. For Rawlsian fairness, the two strategies coincide exactly. Lastly, we extend our model to alternate demand functions and conduct a case study using real-world vaccine pricing data.

Machine learning engineering (MLE) agents promise to automate end-to-end ML pipeline development from raw data and natural language instructions, potentially making ML accessible to non-technical domain experts. However, in sensitive and regulated domains, this abstraction creates a responsibility gap: end-users may lack visibility into design choices that affect correctness, robustness, fairness, and regulatory compliance. We argue that existing benchmarks are insufficient to assess whether MLE agents can be safely applied in such settings. We propose desiderata for a responsibility-centered evaluation framework and conduct an exploratory study on melanoma classification, focusing on fairness across skin tones as a responsibility constraint. When evaluating two recent MLE agents, we find that agent-generated pipelines show high variance and consistently underperform manually designed baselines in both predictive quality and fairness, despite fairness-oriented prompts. These preliminary results suggest that further research is needed towards redesigning MLE agents to allow humans to guide the search process and reliably assess the compliance and quality of the generated ML pipelines.

Strategic machine learning investigates scenarios where agents manipulate their features to receive favorable decisions from predictive models. To address fairness concerns intrinsic to strategic classification, recent work has introduced group-specific fairness constraints. However, current fairness-aware approaches face a fundamental dilemma in the issue of fairness exposure: making these constraints public enables strategic manipulation and can lead to fairness reversal, while keeping them hidden may reduce social welfare and discourage genuine improvement. To fill this gap, we subsequently propose the problem of partial fairness awareness (PFA), as our theoretical analysis informs that such a dilemma can be mitigated by releasing the candidate set of fairness constraints and concealing the grounding constraint. To be specific, we introduce a belief-guided strategic mechanism, wherein agents iteratively interact with the decision system and maintain a belief distribution over the candidate set of fairness constraints. This belief-guided process enables agents, through iterative interaction and feedback, to update their belief distribution over the candidate set, thereby gradually aligning their belief with the grounding fairness constraint employed by the system. Extensive experiments on real-world and synthetic datasets demonstrate that PFA achieves lower group fairness gaps, higher acceptance of truly qualified individuals, and more stable outcomes compared to fully public or private fairness regimes.

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

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

AI alignment and participatory design motivate a new democratic design problem: how to collectively choose a decision rule to use repeatedly. We study this problem for linear ranking rules, which repeatedly rank items $x_j$ within batches $X=(x_1,\dots,x_m)\in(\mathbb{R}^d)^m$, where each item's ranking is dictated by its score $\langle θ^*,x_j\rangle$ according to a fixed scoring vector $θ^*$. Given voters' preferred scoring vectors $θ^{(1)},\dots,θ^{(n)}$ and their population fractions $α^{(1)},\dots,α^{(n)}$, we ask how to choose a collective vector $θ^*$ satisfying individual proportionality (IP): every voter type $i$ should agree with the resulting rankings to an $α^{(i)}$-proportional degree, either on average over time (long-run IP) or even within each batch (per-batch IP). The default rule, the arithmetic mean of the $θ^{(i)}$, has been shown to be severely majoritarian; more generally, it is not clear that any fixed linear rule can balance many voters' disparate opinions. Our main result is that, surprisingly, there is a simple rule that does satisfy long-run IP: the angular mean, the spherical analog of the arithmetic mean. We then show that exact per-batch IP is impossible for fixed linear rules, but that the gap between per-batch and long-run IP shrinks quickly with batch size. Experiments on three real-world preference datasets show that all rules perform similarly when voters' preferences are homogeneous, while the angular mean substantially improves proportionality in high-disagreement regimes.

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

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

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

Many high-stakes decisions in health care, public policy, and clinical development require committing to a single policy that will be applied uniformly across a heterogeneous population. Regulatory and fairness standards sometime requires that the chosen policy performs adequately in every pre-specified subpopulation, not only on average. We formalize this as a Selection of the Best with Fairness Constraints (SBFC) problem, in order to identify the policy with the highest average performance among those policies that meet a minimum per-subpopulation threshold. We establish an instance-specific lower bound on sample complexity of the SBFC problem. We then develop a Track-and-Stop with Constraints on Subpopulation (T-a-S-CS) algorithm that achieves the lower bound asymptotically. We extend the framework to general closed-set and penalty-based fairness specifications with matching guarantees. Numerical experiments and a case study using the International Stroke Trial demonstrate substantial efficiency gains over policy-level allocation baselines.

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

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

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

The incorporation of fairness into the distribution network (DN) planning and operation has become a key goal of recent studies. The cost of implementing fairness, denominated the price of fairness (PoF), covers the efficiency that is renounced for attaining social cohesion through fair outcomes. Locational disparity makes fairness schemes emerge to level the consumers playing field. However, fairness encompasses a range of notions. From egalitarian to merit-based criteria, various metrics are implemented as a tool for measuring equitable utility distribution. These have different mathematical complexities, from linear to non-linear programming cases, which affect their overall applicability. Hence, this study compiles the overarching fairness notions and metrics, reviewing how these affect stakeholders and the inherent mathematical optimisation in resource allocation problems. The aim is to support consistent and transparent planning and decision-making within DN operations.

Speech encoder models are known to model members of some speaker groups (SGs) better than others. However, there has been little work in establishing why this occurs on a technological level. To our knowledge, we present the first layerwise fairness analysis of pretrained self-supervised speech encoder models (S3Ms), probing each embedding layer for speaker identification (SID) automatic speech recognition (ASR). We find S3Ms produce embeddings biased against certain SGs for both tasks, starting at the very first latent layers. Furthermore, we find opposite patterns of layerwise bias for SID vs ASR for all models in our study: SID bias is minimized in layers that minimize overall SID error; on the other hand, ASR bias is maximized in layers that minimize overall ASR error. The inverse bias/error relationship for ASR is unaffected when probing S3Ms that are finetuned for ASR, suggesting SG-level bias is established during pretraining and is difficult to remove.

Machine learning models often inherit biases from historical data, raising critical concerns about fairness and accountability. Conventional fairness interventions typically require access to sensitive attributes like gender or race, but privacy and legal restrictions frequently limit their use. To address this challenge, we propose a framework that infers sensitive attributes from auxiliary features and integrates fairness constraints into model training. Our approach mitigates bias while preserving predictive accuracy, offering a practical solution for fairness-aware learning. Empirical evaluations validate its effectiveness, contributing to the advancement of more equitable algorithmic decision-making.

The evaluation of fairness in machine learning systems has become a central concern in high-stakes applications, including biometric recognition, healthcare decision-making, and automated risk assessment. Existing approaches typically rely on a small number of fairness metrics to assess model behaviour across group partitions, implicitly assuming that these metrics provide consistent and reliable conclusions. However, different fairness metrics capture distinct statistical properties of model performance and may therefore produce conflicting assessments when applied to the same system. In this work, we investigate the consistency of fairness evaluation by conducting a systematic multi-metric analysis of demographic bias in machine learning models. Using face recognition as a controlled experimental setting, we evaluate model performance across multiple group partitions under a range of commonly used fairness metrics, including error-rate disparities and performance-based measures. Our results demonstrate that fairness assessments can vary significantly depending on the choice of metrics, leading to contradictory conclusions regarding model bias. To quantify this phenomenon, we introduce the Fairness Disagreement Index (FDI), a measure designed to capture the degree of inconsistency across fairness metrics. We further show that disagreement remains high across thresholds and model configurations. These findings highlight a critical limitation in current fairness evaluation practices and suggest that single-metric reporting is insufficient for reliable bias assessment.

The widespread use of AI and ML models in sensitive areas raises significant concerns about fairness. While the research community has introduced various methods for bias mitigation in binary classification tasks, the issue remains under-explored in multi-class classification settings. To address this limitation, in this paper, we first formulate the problem of fair learning in multi-class classification as a multi-objective problem between effectiveness (i.e., prediction correctness) and multiple linear fairness constraints. Next, we propose a Generalised Exponentiated Gradient (GEG) algorithm to solve this task. GEG is an in-processing algorithm that enhances fairness in binary and multi-class classification settings under multiple fairness definitions. We conduct an extensive empirical evaluation of GEG against six baselines across seven multi-class and three binary datasets, using four widely adopted effectiveness metrics and three fairness definitions.

Fairness in decision-making processes is often quantified using probabilistic metrics. However, these metrics need not reflect the consequences of decisions for the affected individuals and groups. We develop a utility-based framework that incorporates these consequences into the assessment of fairness. Our main result shows that a decision-making process can satisfy $\varepsilon$-fairness while nevertheless being maximally unfair once the utilities associated with its outcomes are taken into account. To address applications in which information on false negatives is unavailable, we also formulate a reduced setting that retains the essential elements of the utility-based fairness assessment. We illustrate the framework through two applications: college admissions and credit-risk assessment. In both cases, probabilistic metrics may classify a decision-making process as approximately fair even though the corresponding utility outcomes are highly unequal. In the college-admissions example, our analysis shows that improving completion rates is necessary to achieve equality of utility across groups, while in the mortgage example, mitigating unfairness requires not only adjusting approval rates but also reducing the adverse consequences of default. These findings demonstrate that fairness assessments should account not only for the probabilities of different decisions but also for the consequences of those decisions.

Many fairness criteria constrain the policy or choice of predictors, which can have unwanted consequences, in particular, when optimizing the policy under such constraints. Here, we in- stead suggest that fairness can be directly analyzed as a property of the utility function. Instead of imposing fairness constraints on the policy, we suggest to simply maximize a utility function satisfying certain fairness properties. Concretely, we define value of information fairness, which prescribes that there must not be an incentive to infer the protected attribute. This principle sug- gests modifying utility functions such that they satisfy value of information fairness. We describe how such modifications can be achieved and discuss consequences for the corresponding optimal policies. We apply our framework to thought experiments and the COMPAS data, demonstrating that focusing on utility functions sometimes provides answers that better align with intuitive judg- ments about what is fair. Moreover, we are not aware of any intuitively fair policy that violates value of information fairness; and when we find that value of information fairness recommends an intuitively unfair policy, no realizable policy is intuitively fair.

This PhD thesis investigates the societal impact of machine learning (ML). ML increasingly informs consequential decisions and recommendations, significantly affecting many aspects of our lives. As these data-driven systems are often developed without explicit fairness considerations, they carry the risk of discriminatory effects. The contributions in this thesis enable more appropriate measurement of fairness in ML systems, systematic decomposition of ML systems to anticipate bias dynamics, and effective interventions that reduce algorithmic discrimination while maintaining system utility. I conclude by discussing ongoing challenges and future research directions as ML systems, including generative artificial intelligence, become increasingly integrated into society. This work offers a foundation for ensuring that ML's societal impact aligns with broader social values.