公平指标

When an individual reports a negative interaction with some system, how can their personal experience be contextualized within broader patterns of system behavior? We study the *reporting database* problem, where individual reports of adverse events arrive sequentially, and are aggregated over time. In this work, our goal is to identify whether there are subgroups—defined by any combination of relevant features—that are disproportionately likely to experience harmful interactions with the system. We formalize this problem as a sequential hypothesis test, and identify conditions on reporting behavior that are sufficient for making inferences about disparities in true rates of harm across subgroups. We show that algorithms for sequential hypothesis tests can be applied to this problem with a standard multiple testing correction. We then demonstrate our method on real-world datasets, including mortgage decisions and vaccine side effects; on each, our method (re-)identifies subgroups known to experience disproportionate harm using only a fraction of the data that was initially used to discover them.

As AI research surges in both impact and volume, conferences have imposed submission limits to maintain paper quality and alleviate organizational pressure. In this work, we examine the fairness of desk-rejection systems under submission limits and reveal that existing practices can result in substantial inequities. Specifically, we formally define the paper submission limit problem and identify a critical dilemma: when the number of authors exceeds three, it becomes impossible to reject papers solely based on excessive submissions without negatively impacting innocent authors. Thus, this issue may unfairly affect early-career researchers, as their submissions may be penalized due to co-authors with significantly higher submission counts, while senior researchers with numerous papers face minimal consequences. To address this, we propose an optimization-based fairness-aware desk-rejection mechanism and formally define two fairness metrics: worst-case fairness and average fairness. We prove that optimizing worst-case fairness is NP-hard, whereas average fairness can be efficiently optimized via linear programming. Through case studies, we demonstrate that our proposed system ensures greater equity than existing methods, including those used in CVPR 2025, offering a more socially just approach to managing excessive submissions in AI conferences.

Ensembles of Deep Neural Networks, Deep Ensembles, are widely used as a simple way to boost predictive performance. However, their impact on algorithmic fairness is not well understood yet. Algorithmic fairness examines how a model's performance varies across socially relevant groups defined by protected attributes such as age, gender, or race. In this work, we explore the interplay between the performance gains from Deep Ensembles and fairness. Our analysis reveals that they unevenly favor different groups, a phenomenon that we term the disparate benefits effect. We empirically investigate this effect using popular facial analysis and medical imaging datasets with protected group attributes and find that it affects multiple established group fairness metrics, including statistical parity and equal opportunity. Furthermore, we identify that the per-group differences in predictive diversity of ensemble members can explain this effect. Finally, we demonstrate that the classical Hardt post-processing method is particularly effective at mitigating the disparate benefits effect of Deep Ensembles by leveraging their better-calibrated predictive distributions.

As the use of predictive machine learning algorithms increases in high-stakes decision-making, it is imperative that these algorithms are fair across sensitive groups. However, measuring and enforcing fairness in real-world applications can be challenging due to missing or incomplete sensitive group information. Proxy-sensitive attributes have been proposed as a practical and effective solution in these settings, but only for parity-based fairness notions. Knowing how to evaluate and control for fairness with missing sensitive group data for newer, different, and more flexible frameworks, such as multiaccuracy and multicalibration, remains unexplored. In this work, we address this gap by demonstrating that in the absence of sensitive group data, proxy-sensitive attributes can provably be used to derive actionable upper bounds on the true multiaccuracy and multicalibration violations, providing insights into a predictive model’s potential worst-case fairness violations. Additionally, we show that adjusting models to satisfy multiaccuracy and multicalibration across proxy-sensitive attributes can significantly mitigate these violations for the true, but unknown, sensitive groups. Through several experiments on real-world datasets, we illustrate that approximate multiaccuracy and multicalibration can be achieved even when sensitive group data is incomplete or unavailable.

A current limitation of video generative video models is that they generate plausible looking frames, but poor motion --- an issue that is not well captured by FVD and other popular methods for evaluating generated videos. Here we go beyond FVD by developing a metric which better measures plausible object interactions and motion. Our novel approach is based on auto-encoding point tracks and yields motion features that can be used to not only compare distributions of videos (as few as one generated and one ground truth, or as many as two datasets), but also for evaluating motion of single videos. We show that using point tracks instead of pixel reconstruction or action recognition features results in a metric which is markedly more sensitive to temporal distortions in synthetic data, and can predict human evaluations of temporal consistency and realism in generated videos obtained from open-source models better than a wide range of alternatives. We also show that by using a point track representation, we can spatiotemporally localize generative video inconsistencies, providing extra interpretability of generated video errors relative to prior work. An overview of the results and link to the code can be found on the project page: trajan-paper.github.io.

A canonical desideratum for prediction problems is that performance guarantees should hold not just on average over the population, but also for meaningful subpopulations within the overall population. But what constitutes a meaningful subpopulation? In this work, we take the perspective that relevant subpopulations should be defined with respect to the clusters that naturally emerge from the distribution of individuals for which predictions are being made. In this view, a population refers to a mixture model whose components constitute the relevant subpopulations. We suggest two formalisms for capturing per-subgroup guarantees: first, by attributing each individual to the component from which they were most likely drawn, given their features; and second, by attributing each individual to all components in proportion to their relative likelihood of having been drawn from each component. Using online calibration as a case study, we study a multi-objective algorithm that provides guarantees for each of these formalisms by handling all plausible underlying subpopulation structures simultaneously, and achieve an $O(T^{1/2})$ rate even when the subpopulations are not well-separated. In comparison, the more natural cluster-then-predict approach that first recovers the structure of the subpopulations and then makes predictions suffers from a $O(T^{2/3})$ rate and requires the subpopulations to be separable. Along the way, we prove that providing per-subgroup calibration guarantees for underlying clusters can be easier than learning the clusters: separation between median subgroup features is required for the latter but not the former.

In an era of increasingly capable foundation models, job seekers are turning to generative AI tools to enhance their application materials. However, unequal access to and knowledge about generative AI tools can harm both employers and candidates by reducing the accuracy of hiring decisions and giving some candidates an unfair advantage. To address these challenges, we introduce a new variant of the strategic classification framework tailored to manipulations performed using large language models, accommodating varying levels of manipulations and stochastic outcomes. We propose a "two-ticket" scheme, where the hiring algorithm applies an additional manipulation to each submitted resume and considers this manipulated version together with the original submitted resume. We establish theoretical guarantees for this scheme, showing improvements for both the fairness and accuracy of hiring decisions when the true positive rate is maximized subject to a no false positives constraint. We further generalize this approach to an $n$-ticket scheme and prove that hiring outcomes converge to a fixed, group-independent decision, eliminating disparities arising from differential LLM access. Finally, we empirically validate our framework and the performance of our two-ticket scheme on real resumes using an open-source resume screening tool.

Multi-player multi-armed bandit (MP-MAB) has been widely studied owing to its diverse applications across numerous domains. We consider an MP-MAB problem where $N$ players compete for $K$ arms in $T$ rounds. The reward distributions are heterogeneous where each player has a different expected reward for the same arm. When multiple players select the same arm, they collide and obtain zero rewards. In this paper, our target is to find the max-min fairness matching that maximizes the reward of the player who receives the lowest reward. This paper improves the existing max-min regret upper bound of $O(\exp(1/\Delta) + K^3 \log T\log \log T)$. More specifically, our decentralized fair elimination algorithm (DFE) deals with heterogeneity and collision carefully and attains a regret upper bound of $O((N^2+K)\log T / \Delta)$, where $\Delta$ is the minimum reward gap between max-min value and sub-optimal arms. In addition, this paper also provides an $\Omega(\max\\{ N^2, K \\} \log T / \Delta)$ regret lower bound for this problem, which indicates that our algorithm is optimal with respect to key parameters $T, N, K$, and $\Delta$. Additional numerical experiments also show the efficiency and improvement of our algorithms.

This position paper critiques the reliance on rigid racial taxonomies in machine learning, exposing their U.S.-centric nature and lack of global applicability—particularly in Europe, where race categories are not commonly used. These classifications oversimplify racial identity, erasing the experiences of mixed-race individuals and reinforcing outdated essentialist views that contradict the social construction of race. We suggest research agendas in machine learning that move beyond categorical variables to better address discrimination and social inequality.

The Area Under the ROC Curve (AUC) is a key metric for classification, especially under class imbalance, with growing research focus on optimizing AUC over accuracy in applications like medical image analysis and deepfake detection. This leads to fairness in AUC optimization becoming crucial as biases can impact protected groups. While various fairness mitigation techniques exist, fairness considerations in AUC optimization remain in their early stages, with most research focusing on improving AUC fairness under the assumption of clean protected groups. However, these studies often overlook the impact of noisy protected groups, leading to fairness violations in practice. To address this, we propose the first robust AUC fairness approach under noisy protected groups with fairness theoretical guarantees using distributionally robust optimization. Extensive experiments on tabular and image datasets show that our method outperforms state-of-the-art approaches in preserving AUC fairness. The code is in https://github.com/Purdue-M2/AUC_Fairness_with_Noisy_Groups.

In traditional reinforcement learning (RL), the learner aims to solve a single objective optimization problem: find the policy that maximizes expected reward. However, in many real-world settings, it is important to optimize over multiple objectives simultaneously. For example, when we are interested in fairness, states might have feature annotations corresponding to multiple (intersecting) demographic groups to whom reward accrues, and our goal might be to maximize the reward of the group receiving the minimal reward. In this work, we consider a multi-objective optimization problem in which each objective is defined by a state-based reweighting of a single scalar reward function. This generalizes the problem of maximizing the reward of the minimum reward group. We provide oracle-efficient algorithms to solve these multi-objective RL problems even when the number of objectives is very large --- for tabular MDPs, as well as for large MDPs when the group functions have additional structure. The contribution of this paper is that we are able to solve this class of multi-objective RL problems with a possibly *exponentially* large class of constraints over intersecting groups in both tabular and large state space MDPs in an oracle-efficient manner. Finally, we experimentally validate our theoretical results and demonstrate applications on a preferential attachment graph MDP.

The recent rapid adoption of large language models (LLMs) highlights the critical need for benchmarking their fairness. Conventional fairness metrics, which focus on discrete accuracy-based evaluations (i.e., prediction correctness), fail to capture the implicit impact of model uncertainty (e.g., higher model confidence about one group over another despite similar accuracy). To address this limitation, we propose an uncertainty-aware fairness metric, UCerf, to enable a fine-grained evaluation of model fairness that is more reflective of the internal bias in model decisions. Furthermore, observing data size, diversity, and clarity issues in current datasets, we introduce a new gender-occupation fairness evaluation dataset with 31,756 samples for co-reference resolution, offering a more diverse and suitable benchmark for modern LLMs. Combining our metric and dataset, we provide insightful comparisons of eight open-source LLMs. For example, Mistral-8B exhibits suboptimal fairness due to high confidence in incorrect predictions, a detail overlooked by Equalized Odds but captured by UCerF. Overall, this work provides a holistic framework for LLM evaluation by jointly assessing fairness and uncertainty, enabling the development of more transparent and accountable AI systems.

We study the fair scheduling of jobs among groups of (unrelated) machines and focus on the maximin share (MMS) fairness at the group level. The problem was first introduced by Li et al. [NeurIPS 2023], where each group consists of a number of identical machines (or identical up to different speeds), and the cost of a group is determined by the minimum makespan on completing all jobs assigned to it. It is left as an open problem when the machines within each group are unrelated. In this paper, we first resolve this problem and design a polynomial-time algorithm that computes a 2-approximate MMS allocation via linear programming techniques. We complement this result with a hard instance, showing that no algorithm can be better than $(2-\frac{1}{n})$-approximate MMS, where $n$ is the number of machines. Thus the approximation ratio 2 is asymptotically tight. When the groups consist of identical machines, we improve the approximation ratio to $\frac{4}{3}$.

In applications with significant class imbalance or asymmetric costs, metrics such as the $F_\beta$-measure, AM measure, Jaccard similarity coefficient, and weighted accuracy offer more suitable evaluation criteria than standard binary classification loss. However, optimizing these metrics present significant computational and statistical challenges. Existing approaches often rely on the characterization of the Bayes-optimal classifier, and use threshold-based methods that first estimate class probabilities and then seek an optimal threshold. This leads to algorithms that are not tailored to restricted hypothesis sets and lack finite-sample performance guarantees. In this work, we introduce principled algorithms for optimizing generalized metrics, supported by $H$-consistency and finite-sample generalization bounds. Our approach reformulates metric optimization as a generalized cost-sensitive learning problem, enabling the design of novel surrogate loss functions with provable $H$-consistency guarantees. Leveraging this framework, we develop new algorithms, METRO (*Metric Optimization*), with strong theoretical performance guarantees. We report the results of experiments demonstrating the effectiveness of our methods compared to prior baselines.

Modern neural-network-based Image Quality Assessment (IQA) metrics are vulnerable to adversarial attacks, which can be exploited to manipulate search engine rankings, benchmark results, and content quality assessments, raising concerns about the reliability of IQA metrics in critical applications. This paper presents the first comprehensive study of IQA defense mechanisms in response to adversarial attacks on these metrics to pave the way for safer use of IQA metrics. We systematically evaluated 30 defense strategies, including purification, training-based, and certified methods --- and applied 14 adversarial attacks in adaptive and non-adaptive settings to compare these defenses on 9 no-reference IQA metrics. Our proposed benchmark aims to guide the development of IQA defense methods and is open to submissions; the latest results and code are at https://msu-video-group.github.io/adversarial-defenses-for-iqa/.

Collaborative learning enables multiple participants to learn a single global model by exchanging focused updates instead of sharing data. One of the core challenges in collaborative learning is ensuring that participants are rewarded fairly for their contributions, which entails two key sub-problems: contribution assessment and reward allocation. This work focuses on fair reward allocation, where the participants are incentivized through model rewards - differentiated final models whose performance is commensurate with the contribution. In this work, we leverage the concept of slimmable neural networks to collaboratively learn a shared global model whose performance degrades gracefully with a reduction in model width. We also propose a post-training fair allocation algorithm that determines the model width for each participant based on their contributions. We theoretically study the convergence of our proposed approach and empirically validate it using extensive experiments on different datasets and architectures. We also extend our approach to enable training-time model reward allocation.

Robustness with respect to weight perturbations underpins guarantees for generalization, pruning and quantization. Existing guarantees rely on *Lipschitz bounds in parameter space*, cover only plain feed-forward MLPs, and break under the ubiquitous neuron-wise rescaling symmetry of ReLU networks. We prove a new Lipschitz inequality expressed through the $\ell^{1}$-*path-metric* of the weights. The bound is (i) *rescaling-invariant* by construction and (ii) applies to any ReLU-DAG architecture with any combination of convolutions, skip connections, pooling, and frozen (inference-time) batch-normalization —thus encompassing ResNets, U-Nets, VGG-style CNNs, and more. By respecting the network’s natural symmetries, the new bound strictly sharpens prior parameter-space bounds and can be computed in two forward passes. To illustrate its utility, we derive from it a symmetry-aware pruning criterion and show—through a proof-of-concept experiment on a ResNet-18 trained on ImageNet—that its pruning performance matches that of classical magnitude pruning, while becoming totally immune to arbitrary neuron-wise rescalings.

Graph neural networks (GNNs) have shown strong performance in graph fairness learning, which aims to ensure that predictions are unbiased with respect to sensitive attributes. However, existing approaches usually assume that training and test data share the same distribution, which rarely holds in the real world. To tackle this challenge, we propose a novel approach named Dual Unbiased Expansion with Group-acquired Alignment (DANCE) for graph fairness learning under distribution shifts. The core idea of our DANCE is to synthesize challenging yet unbiased virtual graph data in both graph and hidden spaces, simulating distribution shifts from a data-centric view. Specifically, we introduce the unbiased Mixup in the hidden space, prioritizing minor groups to address the potential imbalance of sensitive attributes. Simultaneously, we conduct fairness-aware adversarial learning in the graph space to focus on challenging samples and improve model robustness. To further bridge the domain gap, we propose a group-acquired alignment objective that prioritizes negative pair groups with identical sensitive labels. Additionally, a representation disentanglement objective is adopted to decorrelate sensitive attributes and target representations for enhanced fairness. Extensive experiments demonstrate the superior effectiveness of the proposed DANCE.

We study a collaborative learning problem where $m$ agents aim to estimate a vector $\mu =(\mu_1,\ldots,\mu_d)\in \mathbb{R}^d$ by sampling from associated univariate normal distributions $(\mathcal{N}(\mu_k, \sigma^2))\_{k\in[d]}$. Agent $i$ incurs a cost $c_{i,k}$ to sample from $\mathcal{N}(\mu_k, \sigma^2)$. Instead of working independently, agents can exchange data, collecting cheaper samples and sharing them in return for costly data, thereby reducing both costs and estimation error. We design a mechanism to facilitate such collaboration, while addressing two key challenges: ensuring *individually rational (IR) and fair outcomes* so all agents benefit, and *preventing strategic behavior* (e.g. non-collection, data fabrication) to avoid socially undesirable outcomes. We design a mechanism and an associated Nash equilibrium (NE) which minimizes the social penalty-sum of agents' estimation errors and collection costs-while being IR for all agents. We achieve a $\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{m})$-approximation to the minimum social penalty in the worst case and an $\mathcal{O}(1)$-approximation under favorable conditions. Additionally, we establish three hardness results: no nontrivial mechanism guarantees *(i)* a dominant strategy equilibrium where agents report truthfully, *(ii)* is IR for every strategy profile of other agents, *(iii)* or avoids a worst-case $\Omega(\sqrt{m})$ price of stability in any NE. Finally, by integrating concepts from axiomatic bargaining, we demonstrate that our mechanism supports fairer outcomes than one which minimizes social penalty.

Standard conformal prediction ensures marginal coverage but consistently undercovers underrepresented groups, limiting its reliability for fair uncertainty quantification. Group fairness requires prediction sets to achieve a user-specified coverage level within each protected group. While group-wise conformal inference meets this requirement, it often produces excessively wide prediction sets due to limited sample sizes in underrepresented groups, highlighting a fundamental tradeoff between fairness and efficiency. To bridge this gap, we introduce Surrogate-Assisted Group-Clustered Conformal Inference (SAGCCI), a framework that improves efficiency through two key innovations: (1) clustering protected groups with similar conformal score distributions to enhance precision while maintaining fairness, and (2) deriving an efficient influence function that optimally integrates surrogate outcomes to construct tighter prediction sets. Theoretically, SAGCCI guarantees approximate group-conditional coverage in a doubly robust manner under mild convergence conditions, enabling flexible nuisance model estimation. Empirically, through simulations and an analysis of the phase 3 Moderna COVE COVID-19 vaccine trial, we demonstrate that SAGCCI outperforms existing methods, producing narrower prediction sets while maintaining valid group-conditional coverage, effectively balancing fairness and efficiency in uncertainty quantification.