ICML 2026 Papers

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

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

With the widespread application of data-driven classifiers in high-risk domains, group fairness has become an important research focus. However, most existing methods rely on model constraints or data reweighting, which may limit interpretability or distort the original data distribution. Granular-ball computing (GBC), as a structured and interpretable learning framework, provides a natural foundation for incorporating group fairness into data partitioning. Based on this insight, we propose a $\textbf{Fair}$ $\textbf{G}$ranular-$\textbf{B}$all $\textbf{G}$eneration framework (FairGBG), which employs fair clustering to maintain balanced proportions of sensitive groups within each granular ball (GB), thereby enhancing within-ball group fairness. Theoretical analysis shows that FairGBG can preserve high GB purity while satisfying group fairness requirements. Furthermore, we introduce a $\textbf{Fair}$ $\textbf{G}$ranular-$\textbf{B}$all-based data $\textbf{F}$air $\textbf{C}$lassification method (FairGBFC), which leverages fair GBs to improve classification fairness. Experiments on multiple benchmark datasets demonstrate that, compared with existing GB generation methods, FairGBG can generate locally fair GBs. Moreover, compared with state-of-the-art fairness-aware baselines, FairGBFC achieves a superior trade-off between accuracy and fairness, effectively mitigating bias while preserving high utility. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/jamesandai/FairGB.

Binary classification based on predicted probabilities (scores) is a fundamental task in supervised machine learning. While thresholding scores is Bayes-optimal in the unconstrained setting, using a single threshold generally violates statistical group fairness constraints. Under independence (statistical parity) and separation (equalized odds), such thresholding suffices when the scores already satisfy the corresponding criterion. However, this does not extend to sufficiency: even perfectly group-calibrated scores---including true class probabilities---violate predictive parity after thresholding. In this work, we present an exact solution for optimal binary (randomized) classification under sufficiency, assuming finite sets of group-calibrated scores. We provide a geometric characterization of the feasible pairs of positive predictive value (PPV) and false omission rate (FOR) achievable by such classifiers, and use it to derive a simple post-processing algorithm that attains the optimal classifier using only group-calibrated scores and group membership. Finally, since sufficiency and separation are generally incompatible, we identify the classifier that minimizes deviation from separation subject to sufficiency, and show that it can also be obtained by our algorithm, often achieving performance comparable to the optimum.

Although Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate remarkable reasoning capabilities, inherent social biases often cascade throughout the Chain-of-Thought (CoT) process, leading to continuous "Bias Propagation". Existing debiasing methods primarily focus on static constraints or external interventions, failing to identify and interrupt this propagation once triggered. To address this limitation, we introduce Self-Debias, a progressive framework designed to instill intrinsic self-correction capabilities. Specifically, we reformulate the debiasing process as a strategic resource redistribution problem, treating the model's output probability mass as a limited resource to be reallocated from biased heuristics to unbiased reasoning paths. Unlike standard preference optimization which applies broad penalties, Self-Debias employs a fine-grained trajectory-level objective subject to dynamic debiasing constraints. This enables the model to selectively revise biased reasoning suffixes while preserving valid contextual prefixes. Furthermore, we integrate an online self-improvement mechanism utilizing consistency filtering to autonomously synthesize supervision signals. With merely 20k annotated samples, Self-Debias activates efficient self-correction, achieving superior debiasing performance while preserving general reasoning capabilities without continuous external oversight.

Machine learning fairness research documents trade-offs but lacks quantitative frameworks to measure intrinsic metric compatibility without requiring causal graphs. We introduce a game-theoretic framework that decomposes metrics into interaction vectors, enabling compatibility measurement between metrics via cosine similarity and mechanistic attribution to attribute coalitions. Through analysis of 6 datasets, 7 models, and 6 debiasing methods, we reveal that fairness and utility are often structurally orthogonal (median compatibility $\approx 0$) rather than diametrically opposed, with conflicts driven by sparse, low-order interactions. We further show that debiasing improves fairness by compressing the compatibility space—reducing compatibility of both synergistic and conflicting relationships—rather than eliminating conflicts, providing a mechanistic basis for understanding metric alignment.

Large language models (LLMs) can be controlled at inference time through prompts (in-context learning) and internal activations (activation steering). Different accounts have been proposed to explain these methods, yet their common goal of controlling model behavior raises the question of whether these seemingly disparate methodologies can be seen as specific instances of a broader framework. Motivated by this, we develop a unifying, predictive account of LLM control from a Bayesian perspective. Specifically, we posit that both context- and activation-based interventions impact model behavior by altering its belief in latent concepts: steering operates by changing concept priors, while in-context learning leads to an accumulation of evidence. This results in a closed-form Bayesian model that is highly predictive of LLM behavior across context- and activation-based interventions in a set of domains inspired by prior work on many-shot in-context learning. This model helps us explain prior empirical phenomena - e.g., sigmoidal learning curves as in-context evidence accumulates--while predicting novel ones--e.g., additivity of both interventions in log-belief space, which results in distinct phases such that sudden and dramatic behavioral shifts can be induced by slightly changing intervention controls. Taken together, this work offers a unified account of prompt-based and activation-based control of LLM behavior, and a methodology for empirically predicting the effects of these interventions.

A common assumption in strategic classification is that the classifier is public knowledge. However, it remains unclear whether, and why, a system would choose to commit to full disclosure. We study a setting in which regulation requires the system to disclose some, but not all, of the information. This induces a learning task in which the learner must jointly optimize the classifier and the uncertainty surrounding it. To this end, we adopt from robust mechanism design the notion of *ambiguity*, which in our setting allows the learner to reveal a set or range of possible classifiers, while privately choosing which of them to ultimately realize. We investigate how ambiguity affects the learning task, develop efficient algorithms for computing best-responses and training, and empirically explore strategic learning and its outcomes in this novel setting and using our approach.

Saliency maps are widely used to interpret image classification models and build trust in their predictions; however, their reliability remains a central concern, as randomized networks can produce saliency maps that closely resemble those of trained models. We identify a previously underappreciated architectural contributor to this phenomenon: a *center-focused saliency bias* induced by common convolutional design choices. Through controlled ablations, we show that architectural components such as zero padding and receptive field growth induce a center-focused saliency prior that is already present in randomly initialized CNNs and under randomized inputs. In contrast, this behavior is largely absent in non-convolutional architectures such as Vision Transformers (ViTs) and multilayer perceptrons (MLPs). To investigate the interaction between architectural priors and learning, we introduce a corner-shift benchmark and a Center-Shift Index that quantify how saliency redistributes under object relocation. We show that training can partially shift saliency toward object regions, while randomized models remain dominated by architectural center bias, providing one mechanism by which trained-random similarity can be inflated and clarifying how architectural priors can confound standard saliency evaluations.

Multimodal models like CLIP have gained significant attention due to their remarkable zero-shot performance across various tasks. However, studies have revealed that CLIP can inadvertently learn spurious associations between target variables and confounding factors. To address this, we introduce \textsc{Locate-Then-Correct} (LTC), a contrastive framework that identifies spurious attention heads in Vision Transformers via mechanistic insights and mitigates them through targeted ablation. Furthermore, LTC identifies salient, task-relevant attention heads, enabling the integration of discriminative features through orthogonal projection to improve classification performance. We evaluate LTC on benchmarks with inherent background and gender biases, achieving over a > 50% gain in worst-group accuracy compared to non-training post-hoc baselines. Additionally, we visualize the representation of selected heads and find that the presented interpretation corroborates our contrastive mechanism for identifying both spurious and salient attention heads.

ChatGPT was launched on November 30, 2022; the r/ChatGPT subreddit was created just one day later. Since then, chatbot-based AI products have gone from niche proofs-of-concept to widely-used household names. However, the ways in which adoption has developed, especially among non-experts, remains poorly understood. In this paper, we propose a principled framework for using social media as a data source for understanding the societal impact of widely-adopted consumer AI products, as well as a general approach to monitoring for societally-impactful trends in real time. We apply our framework to conduct what is, to the best of our knowledge, the first longitudinal study of r/ChatGPT. We find that, overall, r/ChatGPT posts over time illustrate the normalization of ChatGPT as an everyday consumer product rather than an exceptional, novel technology. However, our retrospective analysis also finds that posts about using ChatGPT for mental health support, and posts about developing emotional attachments to ChatGPT, both rise steadily in frequency immediately after the launch of GPT-4o in May 2024. We show that our real-time method can detect the increase in emotional engagement as early as October 2024—months before OpenAI made any (public) acknowledgment of this impact.

We study the transit stop placement (TrSP) problem in general metric spaces, where agents travel between source–destination pairs and may either walk directly or utilize a shuttle service via selected transit stops. We investigate fairness in TrSP through the lens of justified representation (JR) and the core, and uncover a structural correspondence with fair clustering. Specifically, we show that a constant-factor approximation to proportional fairness in clustering can be used to guarantee a constant-factor bi-parameterized approximation to core. We establish a lower bound of $1.366$ on the approximability of JR, and moreover show that no clustering algorithm can approximate JR within a factor better than $3$. Going beyond clustering, we propose the Expanding Cost Algorithm, which achieves a tight $2.414$-approximation for JR, but does not give any bounded core guarantee. In light of this, we introduce a parameterized algorithm that interpolates between these approaches, and enables a tunable trade-off between JR and core. Finally, we complement our results with an experimental analysis using small-market public carpooling data.

Federated Learning (FL) often suffers from sacrificing global model accuracy when improving client-level fairness due to data heterogeneity, which often leads to inconsistent performance of the globally trained models, resulting in unfair outcomes among users. Existing fair FL algorithms face a bottleneck: they either sacrifice global model accuracy to promote fairness or fall short of achieving optimal fairness. In this paper, we propose a novel framework that effectively improves fairness while preserving global accuracy by integrating information-theoretic principles with model alignment. Specifically, we leverage the Maximum Entropy Principle to derive an analytic, closed-form solution for fair aggregation weights, ensuring significant fairness enhancements. We further employ a step-wise model alignment strategy that synchronizes gradient directions across heterogeneous clients, effectively mitigating the drift induced by local updates. Theoretical analysis proves that our method guarantees convergence even in non-convex settings. Importantly, we push the theoretical frontier of federated fairness by extending performance variance analysis to generalized regression, providing broader guarantees. Extensive experiments on five datasets demonstrate that our approach consistently outperforms state-of-the-art methods, achieving superior fairness without sacrificing global accuracy. Our code is available at \href{https://github.com/T-Lab-CUHKSZ/FedEBA-Plus}{https://github.com/T-Lab-CUHKSZ/FedEBA-Plus}.

Counterfactual explanations (CFs) help understand machine learning models by identifying minimal input changes that would lead to alternative model outcomes. Recent work demonstrates their utility for reconstructing black-box models, enabling third-party auditing of opaque decision systems for fairness and accountability. Still, CF-based reconstruction may suffer from decision boundary shifts, overfitting, and restrictive assumptions requiring online query access to target platforms. We propose **REconstruction via Counterfactual-Aware waSserstein opTimization (RECAST)** under limited data and restricted access, a behavioral surrogate model based on Wasserstein barycenteric prototypes. Our approach addresses decision boundary shifts by incorporating CFs as informative, though less representative, samples for both classes, maintaining high surrogate fidelity in low-sample regimes without requiring online access during reconstruction. To enhance fairness auditing, our method enables systematic group fairness diagnostics. Experiments on real-world datasets and various setups show that **RECAST** effectively achieves high fidelity and query efficiency, as well as stable results even when the access is limited and noisy.

Structural Causal Models (SCM) are a powerful framework for describing complicated dynamics across the natural sciences. A particularly elegant way of interpreting SCMs is via do-Shapley values, a game-theoretic method of quantifying the average effect of $d$ variables across exponentially many interventions. Like Shapley values, computing do-Shapley values generally requires evaluating exponentially many terms. The foundation of our work is a reformulation of do-Shapley values in terms of the irreducible sets of the underlying SCM. Leveraging this insight, we can exactly compute do-Shapley values in time linear in the number of irreducible sets $r$, which itself can range from $d$ to $2^d$ depending on the graph structure of the SCM. Since $r$ is unknown a priori, we complement the exact algorithm with an estimator that, like general Shapley value estimators, can be run with any query budget. As the query budget approaches $r$, our estimators can produce more accurate estimates than prior methods by several orders of magnitude, and, when the budget reaches $r$, return the Shapley values up to machine precision. Beyond computational speed, we also reduce the identification burden: we prove that non-parametric identifiability of do-Shapley values requires only the identification of interventional effects for the $d$ singleton coalitions, rather than all classes.

Interpretable machine learning requires models that are accurate and structurally faithful to the data. Existing explainability methods rely heavily on additive representations (e.g., Generalized Additive Models (GAMs), SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP), functional ANOVA), which can suffer from signal cancellation and off-support extrapolation in the presence of strong interactions. We propose Tensor Separation Learning (TSL), a regression model that learns a sum of rank-1 products of univariate per-feature functions via a stagewise greedy procedure with orthogonal refitting. By enforcing separability, TSL avoids the information loss inherent in additive projections caused by marginalizing higher-order interactions. The learned TSL model can be fully reconstructed from first-order partial dependence functions, up to constant factors. This stage-wise correspondence ensures that the resulting visualizations are faithful to the fitted components. We establish approximation-rate guarantees for functions with bounded mixed $p$-th order partial derivatives and demonstrate that TSL competes with black-box models on regression benchmarks.

LLMs see the world as a single stream of text, partitioned into *roles* like <user> or <tool>. We trace **prompt injection** to **role confusion**: models perceive the source of text from *how it sounds*, not its labeled role. A command hidden in a webpage hijacks an agent simply because it sounds like <user> text, despite its <tool> label. We design *role probes* to measure how LLMs internally perceive "who is speaking", and find that injected text occupies the same representational space as the trusted role it imitates. We demonstrate this with CoT Forgery, a zero-shot attack that injects fabricated reasoning into user prompts and tool outputs. Models mistake the forgery for their own thoughts, yielding 60% attack success against frontier models with near-zero baselines. Strikingly, the degree of role confusion predicts attack success before a single token is generated. This mechanism generalizes beyond CoT Forgery to standard agent prompt injections, revealing prompt injection as a measurable consequence of role perception. To the model, sounding like a role is indistinguishable from being one.

In performative learning, the data distribution reacts to the deployed model—for example, because strategic users adapt their features to game it—which creates a more complex dynamic than in classical supervised learning. One should thus not only optimize the model for the current data but also take into account that the model might steer the distribution in a new direction, without knowing the exact nature of the potential shift. We explore how regularization can help cope with performative effects by studying its impact in high-dimensional ridge regression. We show that, while performative effects worsen the test risk in the population setting, when moving to the over-parameterized regime where the number of features exceeds the number of samples, the optimal regularization in the presence of performativity helps reduce the variance in the estimated parameters, thereby improving performance. We show that the optimal regularization scales with the overall strength of the performative effect, making it possible to set the regularization in anticipation of this effect. We illustrate this finding through empirical evaluations of the optimal regularization parameter on both synthetic and real-world datasets.

We study the problem of verifying whether certain properties such as robustness or fairness hold in an ensemble of decision trees. This problem is known to be NP-hard, with most research targeting a solution to a specific verification task. We explore the problem through the lens of an ensemble's OC-space: the set of all possible combinations of the individual trees' predictions. This provides a unifying view that yields a more generic and flexible approach to verification. We show that a wide variety of existing verification tasks can be (1) framed as simple searches through OC-space, and (2) answered in time linear or quadratic in the size of the OC-space. Moreover, the search can be made more efficient by using spatial index structures. Interestingly, while the OC-space can grow exponentially with the ensemble's size, in practice it is often feasible to enumerate all output configurations. Empirically, we show that our generic approach can be faster than approaches targeting a single verification task.