Subgroup Information

Synthetic data releases are increasingly proposed in the literature as a means of sharing realistic data replicas in lieu of sensitive private datasets. Even when the worst-case privacy leakage of such releases is bounded by means of differential privacy (DP), in practice a residual risk remains. Membership inference attack (MIA) audits are conducted to empirically quantify this risk. However, existing methods only measure average-case risk for randomly drawn records, which might conceal the risk to vulnerable subgroups. To highlight this issue, we define a subgroup-targeted membership inference game in which the target pool is an explicit parameter, and instantiate it with an audit of 32 proxies under three scenarios with different levels of attacker knowledge, across four datasets, three generators (DP-SGD fine-tuning, API-based prompting, and activation steering), and five privacy budgets. The audit shows that synthetic releases leak subgroup membership and that prior attacks systematically underestimate this leakage. DP is effective at the aggregate level: it substantially reduces average leakage at every budget we test. Three observations temper this picture. First, the remaining leakage is concentrated rather than spread out: under DP, a tenth of the records carries roughly 40% of it. Second, the protection DP delivers in practice is uneven: within its worst-case guarantee, the noise removes more of the measured leakage from random records than from high-risk ones---and a merged-pool audit that scores both record types against shared negatives confirms this at the record level. Third, \emph{which} records leak proves to be a property of the release mechanism rather than of the record alone, so record-level risk cannot be assessed independently of the release.

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.

Attributes describing data content and context can induce diverse imbalance patterns that go beyond label imbalance alone. However, existing studies primarily address label imbalance while overlooking data attributes, such as topics and demographics, which can induce meaningful subgroup structure while causing model degradation on underrepresented subgroups. We propose Attribute-Agnostic Imbalance Augmentation (AIA$^{2}$), a framework for improving model robustness under varying subgroup imbalances without explicit subgroup annotations. AIA$^{2}$ automatically discovers varying imbalances via latent semantic distributions, obtains slices with both learning difficulty and subgroup imbalance deficits, and deploys a large language model (LLM) for subgroup-aware imbalance augmentation. We have evaluated AIA$^{2}$ on 5 popular corpora with rich domains and their attribute values, covering social issues and diverse topics. Results show improved performance on the lowest-performing subgroups and consistent gains over competitive baselines. Ablation studies confirm complementary contributions from each component, and additional analyses show that AIA$^{2}$ provides a practical and consistent way to improve worst-group robustness under data subgroup imbalance. Code is available at https://github.com/trust-nlp/AIA2-Subgroup-Robustness.

Foundation models are increasingly adapted for downstream medical imaging tasks, yet the influence of the chosen adaptation strategy on subgroup fairness remains poorly understood. We investigate how three parameter-efficient adaptation techniques, including linear heads on the raw CLS token, an MLP, and an attention-pooling module over multi-layer patch features, affect both pathology classification performance and subgroup disparities when applied to the frozen Rad-DINO chest X-ray encoder. Using MIMIC-CXR, we evaluate eight pathologies across race, sex, and imaging-view subgroups on a prevalence-preserving, demographically balanced test set, and additionally probe how strongly each adapter encodes protected attributes. We find that attention pooling achieves the strongest overall discriminative performance and encodes attributes, particularly race, most strongly, but that improved overall performance does not consistently reduce subgroup disparities. Notably, stronger attribute encoding did not correspond to larger disparities: early network layers encoded race most weakly yet produced the largest subgroup performance gaps. Exploring different attention-pooling layer combinations further revealed no consistent relationship between the layers pooled, attribute encoding strength, and subgroup fairness. Our results indicate that richer, more expressive representations can improve accuracy while leaving fairness implications task-dependent and unpredictable, which must be assessed directly and per-task rather than inferred from encoding strength or overall performance alone.

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.

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.

Conventional subgroup analyses can yield unstable and difficult-to-interpret conclusions, especially in observational biomedical data where each individual is observed under only one exposure state, true individual treatment effects are unavailable, and causal structure is uncertain. We investigate whether subgroups constructed from pretreatment characteristics, without using exposure, outcome, or estimated treatment-effect information, can serve as interpretable units for budget-constrained policy prioritization. We propose a framework combining causal-discovery-informed covariate selection, discovery-evaluation sample splitting, inductive unsupervised clustering, uncertainty-aware subgroup selection, and held-out doubly robust policy evaluation. We compare K-means, hard, membership-weighted, and stochastic Fuzzy C-means, Bayesian Gaussian mixture models, and a supervised causal-forest-derived CATE-tree comparator. Policies are evaluated under a 70% budget for hypothetical obesity-to-non-obesity and elevated-to-lower-glucose state shifts in the PIMA Indians Diabetes dataset and for a lifetime-smoking-history contrast in NHANES. The highest estimated ungated utilities were 0.799 for the BMI policy using Bayesian GMM, 0.735 for the glucose policy using hard or membership-weighted FCM, and 0.775 for the smoking-history policy using K-means. All paired 95% confidence intervals for policy-risk differences included zero, and no comparison remained statistically significant after Holm adjustment. Bayesian pooling generally preserved ungated allocations, whereas Empirical Bernstein gating was more conservative. Policies with similar estimated utility could nevertheless prioritize different individuals. The findings should be interpreted as assumption-dependent decision-support evidence for hypothetical state contrasts rather than proof of intervention benefit.

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.

Machine learning (ML) models deployed in sensitive domains such as healthcare, law enforcement, and finance must satisfy not only utility requirements but also fairness and privacy guarantees. While prior work has largely examined how privacy-preserving techniques affect fairness, the inverse question-how fairness-enhancing algorithms influence privacy leakage-remains underexplored. We present the first comprehensive study of how fairness interventions affect membership inference privacy risks at the subpopulation level. By adapting the Likelihood Ratio Attack (LiRA) for subgroup auditing, we uncover privacy disparities that aggregate evaluations obscure. We further analyze how Differential Privacy (DP) interacts with fairness-enhancing methods across different categories, showing that DP's privacy benefits and utility costs are unevenly distributed across subpopulations. Our results demonstrate that fairness interventions do not uniformly increase privacy risk; their impact depends on model architecture, subgroup size, and mitigation strategy. These findings reveal that fairness, privacy, and utility must be jointly evaluated at the subpopulation level, and we introduce the first unified empirical framework to support such auditing in practice.

Determining whether one finite group is isomorphic to a subgroup of another is a fundamental problem in computational group theory. In this work, we propose a Siamese Graph Neural Network (Siamese GNN) for subgroup prediction using Cayley graph representations of finite groups. Each input group is represented by its undirected Cayley graph and encoded by one branch of a Siamese GNN to produce a graph embedding. The resulting graph embeddings are combined with algebraic features derived directly from the input groups to construct a joint feature vector, which is processed by a fully connected classifier to predict subgroup relations between finite groups. By integrating graph-based structural representations with algebraic features, the proposed framework provides a unified approach for learning subgroup relations from finite groups. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed architecture, achieving a test accuracy of 95.9% (47/49) on an independent test set and illustrating the potential of geometric deep learning for subgroup prediction.

Algorithmic fairness methods are increasingly used to identify and mitigate bias in machine learning models, yet most approaches are evaluated in isolation and along single demographic axes. This limits practical guidance for selecting fairness strategies, where disparities may arise across intersectional subgroups and across multiple stages of the modeling lifecycle. This work presents FairSelect, a toolkit for systematically evaluating fairness mitigation strategies applied individually and in combination across preprocessing, inprocessing, and postprocessing stages. FairSelect supports multiple model architectures, intersectional subgroup evaluation, and comparison of fairness utility tradeoffs across baseline, single method, and multi level configurations. The framework was validated using synthetic clinical datasets designed to represent specific bias mechanisms and a real-world replication of two-year stroke risk prediction among patients with atrial fibrillation. Synthetic experiments showed that targeted fairness methods generally reduced intended subgroup disparities, while combined strategies produced larger average fairness improvements with modest utility tradeoffs. In the clinical prediction task, mitigation effects were highly variable, with some combinations improving both fairness and predictive performance while others were ineffective or counterproductive. These findings demonstrate that fairness interventions interact in nonadditive and context dependent ways. FairSelect provides a practical framework for systematically identifying fairness strategies that improve subgroup equity while preserving model performance in clinical machine learning.

Missing data is prevalent in practical applications, making effective imputation an essential preprocessing step for downstream analysis. Real-world datasets often exhibit complex latent structures composed of multiple subgroups with distinct distributions. However, existing methods often overlook such population heterogeneity. Without explicit structural guidance, these methods tend to produce generic estimates that blur subgroup boundaries and lack instance-level fidelity. While incorporating subgroup information offers a remedy, it faces a circular dependency: reliable subgroup identification requires complete data, while data completion is the imputation objective itself. To resolve this, we propose CAGI (Cluster-Aware Generative Imputation), a framework that reformulates clustering and imputation as a mutually reinforcing co-optimization process. CAGI employs a ``Partition-Guide-Restore'' strategy where dynamic cluster assignments act as local priors to condition a Generative Adversarial Network. An iterative feedback loop is established to progressively refine both cluster structures and imputed values toward faithful subgroup distributions. To ensure distributional stability, CAGI further employs a multi-level optimization objective combining instance-level reconstruction with distribution-level regularization. Extensive experiments on 14 benchmark datasets with 15 representative baselines demonstrate the superiority of CAGI. The source code is available at: https://github.com/supercocachii/CAGI

In chest X-ray (CXR) classification, acceptable ranking performance can still leave rare-positive patients below threshold, especially within subgroups. We study this pre-deployment fairness problem as an audit question: after a long-tailed multi-label CXR model is converted from scores into decisions, who is missed? Across VinDr-CXR and MIMIC-CXR/CXR-LT, we use a diagnostic ladder to separate class-level long-tail losses, subgroup-aware weighting, group robustness, and threshold selection. On VinDr-CXR, group-tail weighting followed by tail-aware thresholding reduces tail FNR from 0.665 to 0.269, sex worst-group FNR from 0.705 to 0.157, and age worst-group FNR from 0.822 to 0.133, while macro-mAP increases from 0.611 to 0.635. On MIMIC-CXR/CXR-LT, the same score-to-threshold comparison reduces tail FNR from 0.866 to 0.741 and lowers worst-group FNR across sex, age, race, and insurance; residual missed-positive rates nevertheless remain high. Paired bootstrap contrasts on VinDr support the thresholded FNR reductions, and GroupDRO reference runs indicate that aggregate group robustness alone does not remove rare subgroup misses in this setting. The study supports a narrow audit claim: rare-label fairness in CXR depends jointly on the finding, subgroup, and operating threshold, not on label frequency or ranking metrics alone.

We propose \textbf{CaSPECT}, a causal spectral clustering framework for discovering causally homogeneous subgroups from observational data. Rather than clustering in covariate space, CaSPECT defines similarity through the topology of a learned directed acyclic graph (DAG); a bootstrap-stabilised PC algorithm recovers the causal skeleton; a novel \emph{Orientation Validation Score} (OVS) combines PC bootstrap evidence with DirectLiNGAM to orient edges robustly; directed edges are weighted by backdoor-identified average treatment effects estimated via OLS or double machine learning. Chung's directed Laplacian provides a spectral embedding in which individuals close together share the same causal propagation pathways. We establish almost-sure consistency of the full pipeline and validate the method through a controlled simulation study and on LaLonde CPS1, IHDP, and 401(k) datasets, where CaSPECT recovers a positive and statistically significant treatment effect within the causally comparable subpopulation and corrects for severe confounding without requiring a pre-specified propensity score model.

Vision transformers have become a dominant architecture for visual recognition. However, standard models do not explicitly encode the planar symmetries that arise in many vision domains. We introduce a family of vision transformers equivariant to arbitrary discrete subgroups of $\mathrm{O}(2)$, providing a unified framework that generalizes prior flipping- and $D_4$-equivariant transformer architectures. Our construction yields equivariant analogues of the core transformer components, together with expressivity guarantees for the resulting layers. In particular, we show that whenever $H \le G$, the class of $G$-equivariant ViTs embeds naturally into the class of $H$-equivariant ViTs. We also prove that, in the single-head setting, the corresponding equivariant self-attention layer realizes every $G$-equivariant self-attention map representable by ordinary self-attention. We further construct a $D_6$-equivariant model based on hexagonal patches, making the architecture compatible with six-fold rotational symmetries. We evaluate the resulting models on the PatternNet aerial image dataset in artificially data-scarce regimes across subgroups of $D_4$ and $D_6$. Our experiments compare two equivariant attention mechanisms and analyze how the choice of homogeneous-space configurations used in the nonlinearities affects performance. Preliminary results under matched parameter budgets indicate that equivariance can improve recognition accuracy, motivating further study of how discrete symmetry groups shape transformer-based visual recognition models.

Machine learning models have been shown to exhibit discriminatory outcomes or degraded performance for individuals at the intersection of multiple sensitive attributes, such as race and gender. This stems in part from two interrelated challenges: the lack of principled measures for quantifying bias (potentially intersectional), and insufficient representation of intersectional subgroups in training data. We extend a recent bias mitigation framework to incorporate coverage constraints that enforce sufficient representation across groups, including intersectional subgroups. Since achieving exactly zero bias for all groups may not be data efficient (meaning it may require large amounts of data), our solution trades small approximation errors in bias for greater data efficiency while satisfying coverage constraints. We also formulate bias mitigation as an integer linear program that optimizes over all mitigation strategies, and characterize the price of fairness, the minimum data modification cost, as a function of fairness tolerance. This is essential both for legal compliance, where regulations may mandate specific fairness thresholds, and for data governance, enabling practitioners to make informed trade-offs between bias reduction and data modification (particularly, data purchasing) costs. We evaluate our techniques on publicly available datasets, demonstrating that bias mitigation via our framework preserves predictive accuracy across multiple classifiers, and that coverage constraints, while motivated by statistical considerations, are essential for preserving downstream ML performance.

Stage B heart failure is characterized by asymptomatic structural or functional cardiac abnormalities. Identifying individuals at this stage is clinically important, as early detection may enable targeted interventions to prevent progression to symptomatic disease. Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) may support early detection, transparent risk stratification, and selection of clinically actionable interventions. This review examines the use of XAI in detecting and characterizing stage B heart failure. A literature search of Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed was conducted on 27 March 2026. Studies were included if they applied AI with XAI techniques to stage B heart failure. After screening, 20 studies were included. Data on modalities, outcomes, demographic reporting, and XAI methods were extracted and synthesized. SHAP was the most commonly used method, followed by LIME, saliency maps, and Grad-CAM; however, XAI adoption was inconsistent, with some studies relying on limited or ad hoc interpretability approaches. Notably, none compared explanations across sex or ethnic subgroups, despite evidence of subgroup differences in disease burden. Evaluation of XAI outputs was often insufficient: some studies did not assess explanations, while others relied only on literature-based comparisons, introducing potential bias. These limitations suggest explainability was not systematically validated or leveraged to support robust and fair clinical inference. XAI shows promise for improving transparency in stage B heart failure identification, but current implementations remain limited. Key gaps include limited consideration of sex and ethnicity, absence of subgroup-specific analyses, inconsistent evaluation, and lack of external validation, all of which constrain generalisability and clinical adoption.

In this paper, we establish a set of theoretical impossibility results, termed the No-Free-Fairness theorems, that identify three fundamental sources of disparity in learning systems. First, we show that when a task exhibits irreducible cost on a subgroup, any decision rule must trade off overall performance with disparity, yielding an inherent fairness--cost frontier. Second, we prove that even in ideal, noise-free settings where a perfectly fair and accurate solution exists, finite-sample learning alone induces nontrivial subgroup disparity, ruling out distribution-free fairness guarantees. More seriously, enforcing strict relative fairness creates a statistical bottleneck: achieving low cost may require exponentially many samples. Third, we show that limitations of the model class can independently induce disparity: if the model cannot represent accurate solutions for a subgroup, fairness remains unattainable regardless of data or training procedure. Overall, these results demonstrate that unfairness is not solely a consequence of biased data or suboptimal optimization, but arises from the intrinsic structure of decision problems, the constraints of finite data, and the expressivity of models. Our framework applies broadly beyond standard supervised learning, and suggests that achieving fairness requires explicit trade-offs and should be treated as a core design consideration.

ML classifiers deployed in high-stakes domains produce predictions whose quality varies systematically across subgroups. For granular subgroups defined by intersections of multiple features, predictions are often inconsistent with the observed data: the model's outputs contradict the evidence available for that subgroup. This problem is exacerbated by regularisation, which improves aggregate performance by collapsing small subgroups into larger groups, disproportionately affecting demographic minorities. We define two requirements for consistent prediction: determinism (identical individuals receive identical predictions) and statistical consistency (we cannot reject, at significance level alpha, the hypothesis that the predictions for a subgroup were drawn from the Bayesian optimal target distribution inferred for that subgroup). From these requirements we derive the Fair Bayesian classifier, which enforces both across every group and subgroup simultaneously and abstains whenever no consistent deterministic prediction is possible. On three benchmark datasets (Adult, COMPAS, and Bank Marketing), standard classifiers produce statistically inconsistent predictions for a substantial proportion of subgroups. Our classifier achieves zero consistency error by construction while exceeding baseline accuracy and multicalibration on every dataset tested. Statistical consistency provides a principled foundation for prediction quality with direct implications for algorithmic fairness. Minority demographics are disproportionately concentrated in small subgroups, precisely where frequentist inference is least reliable; addressing this inference problem is therefore a necessary step toward fair ML. By enforcing Bayesian consistency at the finest resolution the data supports, the our classifier demonstrates that exhaustive subgroup fairness with principled abstention is achievable in practice.

When many people highlight the same document, is the crowd a single consensus, or is it internally structured into reader sub-groups that mark different things -- and is that structure a stable property of a reader or of the document? Building on prior work showing an individual's within-document highlighting signal is a whisper while individuality lives in selection, we ask the group-level question on a co-readership platform using a margin-preserving curveball null. Experiment 1: within a document, readers form strong sub-groups -- pairs agree far beyond what shared salience, mark density, and sentence popularity predict (nearest-neighbour agreement z=+6.3, significant in 88% of documents). Under an eight-block region-preserving null, shared engagement with the same coarse regions of the document accounts for about 40% of this excess; the majority survives as finer reader-specific agreement (z=+3.6, 77% significant). So the within-document crowd is, in a descriptive sense, factional. Experiment 2: is that grouping a stable reader trait? Here we are honest about power. The cross-document split-half reproducibility of a pair's agreement is near zero pooled (+0.078 and 0.000 in two separately drawn samples), and a power calibration shows the test is informative only for pairs that co-read many documents. In the only informative high-overlap subset (k>=4), point estimates are positive but small-sample, imprecise across the separately drawn samples, never significant, and attenuate under the region-preserving null. We therefore leave cross-document stability unresolved: the data is consistent with anything from situational grouping to a weak-to-moderate stable reader trait. The crowd is factional within a document; whether its factions follow the reader across documents is, honestly, beyond our reach.

Subgraph counting is a fundamental problem in graph analysis. Motivated by practical scenarios where graph analytics are performed on subgraphs induced by selected vertices -- rather than on the entire graph -- and by growing privacy concerns, we initiate the study of differentially private range subgraph counting (DPRSC). The goal is to privately count occurrences of a fixed pattern graph within induced subgraphs defined by multi-dimensional attribute ranges. Unlike classical point counting, subgraph counting is inherently nonlinear and exhibits high sensitivity: a single edge modification can affect many subgraph occurrences. We present the first efficient algorithms for DPRSC with small additive error. Our approach introduces a subgraph projection that reduces DPRSC to weighted orthogonal range counting, enabling the use of range trees and local sensitivity estimation to achieve accurate private query answering. We complement our algorithms with matching lower bounds, obtained by reducing reconstruction attacks to DPRSC and leveraging discrepancy theory. In particular, we show that any differentially private algorithm for DPRSC must incur additive error exponential in the dimension. Empirical evaluations demonstrate that our algorithms significantly outperform baseline methods in accuracy and runtime while maintaining strong privacy guarantees.

This work proposes a novel solution to predict pulsar timing residuals with limited data, addressing the critical challenge of data scarcity across spin-frequency subgroups of millisecond pulsars in PTA datasets. The proposed solution applies a Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) network optimized using the model-agnostic meta-learning algorithm, enabling rapid adaptation to new frequency domain by fine-tuning the LSTM network with only a few-shot of ground truth timing residuals. Particle swarm optimization algorithm is also used for automatic hyperparameter optimization, leading to improved prediction accuracy. Our solution, evaluated on the second data release of the International Pulsar Timing Array (IPTA), demonstrates robust generalization with accurate predictions in three metrics across high-frequency test frequency domains, while requiring only 10% of the timing residuals from these domains for model fine-tuning. Furthermore, our lightweight structure only costs 16.86 MB CPU memory and 18 milliseconds for single-step residual prediction. All these characteristics make our solution highly suitable for real-world applications, where effective and real-time predictions of pulsar timing residuals are essential-particularly in resource-constrained environments with limited computational power, memory, or energy availability.

When machine learning systems under-perform for particular subgroups, affected users typically have no way to correct these disparities without relying on platform-level fixes. Existing approaches to algorithmic fairness rely on provider-centric approaches to correct these failures, leaving users with no external lever when faced with harm. Recent work in Algorithmic Collective Action shows that coordinated users can steer an algorithmic system toward a collective goal, but the existing mechanisms require the provider to retrain on the collective's modified data which users may not have control over. We propose Test-Time Collective Action (TTCA), a framework through which a group of users who share query access to the platform, can correct disparities affecting under-served subgroup without participating in the platform's training loop. We implement this through a proxy-based mechanism where the collective pools query access to a black-box API to extract a proxy of the platform, then optimizes a per-class universal perturbation against the proxy. Each member applies this perturbation to their own inputs at submission time, requiring no cooperation from the platform. We empirically evaluate the mechanism on CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, and FairFace, showing that modestly-sized collectives close most of the subgroup accuracy gap, transfer across architectures (a small proxy can attack a larger platform), and improve worst-group accuracy, equal-opportunity gap, and disparate impact. A query-budget analysis comparing a per-user black-box attack baseline shows that pooling is cheaper than each subgroup member attacking alone. Test-time collective action thus offers corrective intervention to users when platform-side remediation is unavailable or delayed.

In biomedical Subgroup Discovery, practitioners are interested in discovering interpretable and homogeneous subgroups within a group of patients. In this paper, assuming that healthy subjects (i.e., controls) share common but irrelevant factors of variation with the patients, we motivate and develop a Contrastive Subgroup Discovery method, entitled Deep UCSL. By contrasting patients with controls, Deep UCSL identifies subgroups driven solely by pathological factors, ignoring common variability shared with healthy subjects. Our framework employs a deep feature extractor to learn a discriminative representation space. Mathematically, we derive a novel loss based on the conditional joint likelihood of latent clusters and patient/control labels, optimized via an Expectation-Maximization strategy alternating between subgroup inference and feature encoder updates. A regularization term further encourages representations to capture disease-specific variability while ignoring variability shared with controls. Compared to previous related works, our approach quantitatively improves the quality of the estimated subgroups, as demonstrated on a MNIST example and four distinct real medical imaging datasets. Code and datasets are available at: https://github.com/rlouiset/deep_ucsl.

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

Conformal prediction methods provide statistically rigorous marginal coverage guarantees for machine learning models, but such guarantees fail to account for algorithmic biases, thereby undermining fairness and trust. This paper introduces a fair conformal inference framework for classification tasks. The proposed method constructs prediction sets that guarantee conditional coverage on adaptively identified subgroups, which can be implicitly defined through nonlinear feature combinations. By balancing effectiveness and efficiency in producing compact, informative prediction sets and ensuring adaptive equalized coverage across unfairly treated subgroups, our approach paves a practical pathway toward trustworthy machine learning. Extensive experiments on both synthetic and real-world datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of the framework.

Medical image segmentation models can perform unevenly across subgroups. Most existing fairness methods focus on improving average subgroup performance, implicitly treating each subgroup as internally homogeneous. However, this can hide difficult cases within a subgroup, where high-loss samples are obscured by the subgroup mean. We call this problem \textbf{intra-group hidden failure}. To solve this, we propose \textbf{DuetFair} mechanism, a dual-axis fairness framework that jointly considers inter-subgroup adaptation and intra-subgroup robustness. Based on DuetFair, we introduce \textbf{FairDRO}, which combines distribution-aware mixture-of-experts (dMoE) with subgroup-conditioned distributionally robust optimization (DRO) loss aggregation. This design allows the model to adapt across subgroups while also reducing hidden failures within each subgroup. We evaluate FairDRO on three medical image segmentation benchmarks with varying degrees of within-group heterogeneity. FairDRO achieves the best equity-scaled performance on Harvard-FairSeg and improves worst-case subgroup performance on HAM10000 under both age- and race-based grouping schemes. On the 3D radiotherapy target cohort, FairDRO further improves worst-group Dice by 3.5 points ($\uparrow 6.0\%$) under the tumor-stage grouping and by 4.1 points ($\uparrow 7.4\%$) under the institution grouping over the strongest baseline.

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.

K-means clustering is widely used in psychological and psychometric research to identify profiles, subgroups, and potential typologies, yet its classical formulation does not test whether such groups exist as latent psychological categories. Instead, K-means partitions multidimensional space into regions around centroids, favoring compact, approximately spherical clusters defined by geometric distance. In this paper, we examine this limitation through a sequence of controlled simulated datasets. We then extend the analysis to the SMARVUS dataset, a large international psychometric dataset comprising survey responses from university students across 35 countries, to evaluate whether similar geometric partitioning patterns emerge in empirical psychological data. By contrasting simulated and empirical data, this paper argues that K-means can produce stable and visually coherent clustering solutions even in continuous Gaussian latent spaces without true subgroup structure.

We study the problem of understanding where two populations differ within a feature space, which we formalize in the concept of a differential subgroup: a subset of individuals from both populations who, despite sharing similar characteristics, exhibit exceptional differences in a target outcome. Differential subgroups reveal the regions of the feature space where population-level gaps are most pronounced and can help practitioners identify the covariate combinations that are structurally responsible for these differences, e.g.~in clinical analysis, model diagnostics, or treatment-effect studies. We introduce a general optimization objective for discovering differential subgroups and establish conditions under which the resulting subgroups admit a causal interpretation of population differences. We propose DiffSub, a gradient-based approach that discovers interpretable differential subgroups in tabular data. Across synthetic benchmarks, medical case studies, model-error analyses, and treatment-effect settings, DiffSub identifies informative subgroups that reveal where population differences arise and why.

Machine learning models for medical image analysis often exhibit subgroup-dependent performance, which impacts how decisions should be allocated between automated systems and human experts under limited resources. Prior work on AI fairness and human-AI cooperation, including learning to defer (L2D) and learning to complement (L2C), typically addresses these problems in isolation. We propose People-Centred Medical Image Analysis (PecMan), a framework for fairness-aware human-AI co-operative classification that jointly models subgroup-dependent reliability, decision allocation, and collaborative prediction. PecMan combines subgroup-specialised predictors with a gating and consolidation mechanism that dynamically assigns cases to automated models, human experts, or their combination, without requiring sensitive attributes at test time. We also introduce the FairHAI benchmark for evaluating trade-offs between predictive accuracy, subgroup equity, and human involvement. In addition, we provide a theoretical analysis of multi-agent gating via selection regret and characterise fairness-coverage trade-offs under input-dependent allocation. Experiments across multiple medical imaging datasets demonstrate that PecMan achieves consistently improved trade-offs compared to methods that address fairness or human-AI cooperation separately.

The evaluation of machine learning models typically relies mainly on performance metrics based on loss functions, which risk to overlook changes in performance in relevant subgroups. Auditing tools such as SliceFinder and SliceLine were proposed to detect such groups, but usually have conceptual disadvantages, such as the inability to directly address continuous covariates. In this paper, we introduce FairTree, a novel algorithm adapted from psychometric invariance testing. Unlike SliceFinder and related algorithms, FairTree directly handles continuous, categorical, and ordinal features without discretization. It further decomposes performance disparities into systematic bias and variance, allowing a categorization of changes in algorithm performance. We propose and evaluate two variations of the algorithm: a permutation-based approach, which is conceptually closer to SliceFinder, and a fluctuation test. Through simulation studies that include a direct comparison with SliceLine, we demonstrate that both approaches have a satisfactory rate of false-positive results, but that the fluctuation approach has relatively higher power. We further illustrate the method on the UCI Adult Census dataset. The proposed algorithms provide a flexible framework for the statistical evaluation of the performance and aspects of fairness of machine learning models in a wide range of applications even in relatively small data.