社会层面 · fairness

Algorithmic fairness is often studied in static or single-agent settings, yet many real-world decision-making systems involve multiple interacting entities whose multi-stage actions jointly influence long-term outcomes. Existing fairness methods applied at isolated decision points frequently fail to mitigate disparities that accumulate over time. Although recent work has modeled fairness as a sequential decision-making problem, it typically assumes centralized agents or simplified dynamics, limiting its applicability to complex social systems. We introduce **MAFE**, a suite of *Multi-Agent Fair Environments* designed to simulate realistic, modular, and dynamic systems in which fairness emerges from the interplay of multiple agents. We demonstrate MAFEs in three domains—loan processing, healthcare, and higher education—supporting heterogeneous agents, configurable interventions, and fairness metrics. The environments are open-source and compatible with standard multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) libraries, enabling reproducible evaluation of fairness-aware policies. Through extensive experiments on cooperative use cases, we demonstrate how MAFE facilitates the design of equitable multi-agent algorithms and reveals critical trade-offs between fairness, performance, and coordination. MAFE provides a foundation for systematic progress in dynamic, multi-agent fairness research.

Data selection studies the problem of identifying high-quality subsets of training data. While some existing works have considered selecting the subset of data with top-$m$ Data Shapley or other semivalues as they account for the interaction among every subset of data, other works argue that Data Shapley can sometimes perform ineffectively in practice and select subsets that are *no better than random*. This raises the questions: **(I)** *Are there certain "Shapley-informative" settings where Data Shapley consistently works well?* **(II)** *Can we strategically utilize these settings to select high-quality subsets consistently and efficiently?* In this paper, we propose a novel data selection framework, **NASH** (Non-linear Aggregation of SHapley-informative components), which **(I)** decomposes the target utility function (e.g., validation accuracy) into simpler, Shapley-informative component functions, and selects data by optimizing an objective that **(II)** aggregates these components non-linearly. We demonstrate that NASH substantially boosts the effectiveness of Shapley/semivalue-based data selection with minimal additional runtime cost.

Ensuring fairness in matching algorithms is a key challenge in allocating scarce resources and positions. Focusing on Optimal Transport (OT), we introduce a novel notion of group fairness requiring that the probability of matching two individuals from any two given groups in the OT plan satisfies a predefined target. We first propose a modified Sinkhorn algorithm to compute perfectly fair transport plans efficiently. Since exact fairness can significantly degrade matching quality in practice, we then develop two relaxation strategies. The first one involves solving a penalized OT problem, for which we derive novel finite-sample complexity guarantees. Our second strategy leverages bilevel optimization to learn a ground cost that induces a fair OT solution, and we establish a bound on the deviation of fairness when matching unseen data. Finally, we present empirical results illustrating the performance of our approaches and the trade-off between fairness and transport cost.

In many real-world settings, a centralized decision-maker must repeatedly allocate finite resources to a population over multiple time steps. Individuals who receive a resource derive some stochastic utility; to characterize the population-level effects of an allocation, the expected individual utilities are then aggregated using a social welfare function (SWF). We formalize this setting and present a general confidence sequence framework for SWF-based online learning and inference, valid for any monotonic, concave, and Lipschitz-continuous SWF. Our key insight is that monotonicity alone suffices to lift confidence sequences from individual utilities to anytime-valid bounds on optimal welfare. Building on this foundation, we propose SWF-UCB, a SWF-agnostic online learning algorithm that achieves near-optimal $\tilde{\mathcal{O}}(n+\sqrt{nkT})$ regret (for $k$ resources distributed among $n$ individuals at each of $T$ time steps). We instantiate our framework on three normatively distinct SWF families: Weighted Power Mean, Kolm, and Gini, providing bespoke oracle algorithms for each. Experiments confirm $\sqrt{T}$ scaling and reveal rich interactions between $k$ and SWF parameters. This framework naturally supports inference applications such as sequential hypothesis testing, optimal stopping, and policy evaluation.

As large language models (LLMs) are adopted into frameworks that grant them the capacity to make real decisions, it is increasingly important to ensure that they are unbiased. In this paper, we argue that the predominant approach of simply removing existing biases from models is not enough. Using a paradigm from the psychology literature, we demonstrate that LLMs can spontaneously develop novel social biases about artificial demographic groups even when no inherent differences exist. These biases result in highly stratified task allocations, which are less fair than assignments by human participants and are exacerbated by newer and larger models. In humans, emergent biases like these have been shown to result from exploration-exploitation trade-offs, where the decision-maker explores too little, allowing early observations to strongly influence impressions about entire demographic groups. To alleviate this effect, we examine a series of interventions targeting model inputs, problem structure, and explicit steering. We find that explicitly incentivizing exploration most robustly reduces stratification, highlighting the need for better multifaceted objectives to mitigate bias. These results reveal that LLMs are not merely passive mirrors of human social biases, but can actively create new ones from experience, raising urgent questions about how these systems will shape societies over time.

As acquiring reliable ground-truth labels is usually costly, or infeasible, crowdsourcing and aggregation of noisy human annotations is a common alternative. Aggregating subjective labels, though, may amplify individual biases, particularly regarding sensitive features, raising fairness concerns. Nonetheless, fairness in crowdsourced aggregation remains largely unexplored, with no existing convergence guarantees and only limited post-processing approaches for enforcing $\varepsilon$-fairness under demographic parity. We address this gap by analyzing the fairness of crowdsourced aggregation methods within the $\varepsilon$-fairness framework, for Majority Vote and Optimal Bayesian aggregation. In the small-crowd regime, we derive an upper bound on the fairness gap of Majority Vote in terms of the fairness gaps of the individual annotators. We further show that the fairness gap of the aggregated consensus converges exponentially fast to that of the ground-truth under interpretable conditions. Since ground-truth itself may still be unfair, we generalize a state-of-the-art multiclass fairness post-processing algorithm from the continuous to the discrete setting, which enforces strict demographic parity constraints on any aggregation rule. Experiments on synthetic and real datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach and corroborate the theoretical insights.

Understanding the internal mechanisms of deep neural networks remains a significant challenge, particularly in elucidating how generic visual concepts emerge within latent spaces. In this work, we propose SAEs-BrainMap, a novel framework that utilizes human brain activation patterns from the ventral visual pathway as objective probes to guide the identification of features decomposed by Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs). Our quantitative and qualitative empirical results demonstrate a robust representational alignment between sparse model features and biological Regions of Interests (ROIs), confirming the feasibility of utilizing brain signals to characterize model functionality. By leveraging this alignment, we trace the hierarchical trajectory of generic concepts cross layers and utilize the brain's hierarchical structure to visualize the model's global processing flow, providing novel insights into model interpretability. Our code is available at [this repository](https://github.com/Matzohe/SAEs-BrainMap).

Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) aims to provide human-interpretable insights into the behavior of deep neural networks (DNNs), typically by estimating a simplified causal structure of the model. In existing work, this causal structure often includes relationships where the presence of a concept is associated with a strong activation of a neuron. For example, attribution methods primarily identify input pixels that contribute most to a prediction, and feature visualization methods reveal inputs that cause high activation of a target neuron – the former implicitly assuming that the relevant information resides in the input, and the latter that neurons encode the presence of concepts. However, a largely overlooked type of causal relationship is that of encoded absences, where the absence of a concept increases neural activation. In this work, we show that such missing but relevant concepts are common and that mainstream XAI methods struggle to reveal them when applied in their standard form. To address this, we propose two simple extensions to attribution and feature visualization techniques that uncover encoded absences. Across experiments, we show how mainstream XAI methods can be used to reveal and explain encoded absences, how ImageNet models exploit them, and that debiasing can be improved when considering them.

Post-hoc controllability of fair machine learning models, the ability to control the trade-off between fairness and accuracy after training, is valuable for practical deployment. Existing post-processing methods provide such post-hoc controllability but often suffer from significant accuracy degradation, whereas in-processing methods achieve efficient trade-offs but require computationally expensive retraining for each change in trade-off ratio. To achieve both post-hoc controllability and efficient trade-offs, we propose a novel fair classification algorithm that learns effective feature representations to improve the trade-off efficiency of post-processing fair classifiers, by a gradient-based optimization approach. Experimental results on real-world datasets demonstrate that our method achieves trade-off efficiency comparable to, or even surpassing, in-processing methods, without requiring any retraining.

Prevalent multimodal self-supervised learning (SSL) methods rely on the **redundancy assumption**: that different views share substantial task-relevant information. We argue that this assumption fails in complex, real-world settings characterized by heterogeneity (e.g., variable-length healthcare or behavioral data), where enforcing strict alignment can discard unique, modality-specific signals and inadvertently amplify bias. In this work, we propose **FairSSL**, a framework that leverages data heterogeneity as a resource for fairness rather than a hindrance. Unlike standard contrastive approaches, FairSSL uses a subject-aware Variance-Invariance-Covariance Regularization objective, where alignment is enforced across segments drawn from the same subject. We introduce a segment-based pooling strategy to handle variable-length modalities, and we regularize representations to encourage (i) sufficient within-subject variability, (ii) cross-modal and cross-subject invariance, and (iii) representation decorrelation. Theoretical analysis shows that our objective bounds the score gap between protected groups. Empirically, FairSSL significantly outperforms existing baselines on heterogeneous multimodal datasets, improving fairness without sacrificing downstream predictive performance. Code available at: https://github.com/abtinmU/FairSSL

Recent leaderboard-based evaluations of large language models aggregate user feedback by fitting a Bradley--Terry model to pairwise comparisons, producing a single global ranking based on a latent quality score. While appealing for its simplicity, this approach is incompatible with heterogeneous preferences: when LLMs are used across diverse tasks and use cases, users who favor fundamentally different model behaviors can be systematically misrepresented when collapsed into a single quality score. To address this issue, we study *pluralistic leaderboards* that aim to remain *stable* with respect to heterogeneous user populations. Drawing on ideas from social choice theory, we adapt the notion of *local stability*, which requires that no model outside the top-$k$ positions is collectively preferred to the top-$k$ set by more than $O(1/k)$ fraction of users. Building on techniques from the social choice literature, we design an alternative leaderboard mechanism that satisfies local stability while eliciting only $\widetilde{O}(k)$ pairwise comparisons per user, where $k$ is the size of the prefix for which stability is guaranteed. Using data from LMArena, we show that standard Bradley--Terry aggregation can violate local stability in practice, whereas our method provides substantially stronger stability guarantees.

How does the conversational past of large language models (LLMs) influence their future performance? Recent work suggests that LLMs are affected by their conversational history in unexpected ways. For instance, hallucinations in prior interactions may influence subsequent model responses. In this work, we introduce History Echoes, a framework that investigates how conversational history biases subsequent generations. The framework explores this bias from two perspectives: probabilistically, we model conversations as Markov chains to quantify state consistency; geometrically, we measure the consistency of consecutive hidden representations. Across three model families and six datasets spanning diverse phenomena, our analysis reveals a strong correlation between the two perspectives. By bridging these perspectives, we demonstrate that behavioral persistence manifests as a geometric trap, where gaps in the latent space confine the model's trajectory.

Conformal prediction (CP) offers distribution-free uncertainty quantification for machine learning models, yet its interplay with fairness in downstream decision-making remains underexplored. Moving beyond CP as a standalone operation (procedural fairness), we analyze the holistic decision-making pipeline to evaluate substantive fairness—the equity of downstream outcomes. Theoretically, we derive an upper bound that decomposes prediction-set size disparity into interpretable components, clarifying how label-clustered CP helps control method-driven contributions to unfairness. To facilitate scalable empirical analysis, we introduce an LLM-in-the-loop evaluator that approximates human assessment of substantive fairness across diverse modalities. Our experiments show that label-clustered CP often provides a favorable balance between utility and substantive fairness, while reducing set-size disparities in line with our theory. Finally, we empirically show that equalized set sizes, rather than coverage, strongly correlate with improved substantive fairness, enabling practitioners to design more fair CP systems. Our code is available at https://github.com/layer6ai-labs/llm-in-the-loop-conformal-fairness.

Fairness is a crucial concern for generative models, which not only reflect but can also amplify societal and cultural biases. Existing fairness notions for generative models are largely adapted from classification and focus on balancing the probability of generating samples from each sensitive group. We show that such criteria are brittle, as they can be met even when different sensitive groups are modeled with widely varying quality. To address this limitation, we introduce a new fairness definition for generative models, termed as \emph{equalized generative treatment} (EGT), which requires comparable generation quality across all sensitive groups, with quality measured via a reference $f$-divergence. We further analyze the trade-offs induced by EGT, demonstrating that enforcing fairness constraints necessarily couples the overall model quality to that of the most challenging group to approximate. This indicates that a simple yet efficient min–max fine-tuning method should be able to balance $f$-divergences across sensitive groups to satisfy EGT. We validate this theoretical insight through a set of experiments on both image and text generation tasks. We demonstrate that min-max methods consistently achieve fairer outcomes compared to other approaches from the literature, while maintaining competitive overall performance for both tasks.

Identifying _most influential sets_ (MIS) – size-$k$ subsets whose removal maximally changes a target estimand – is typically infeasible because it requires searching over $n$ choose $k$ subsets. For estimands with linear-fractional leave-set-out effects, we show that MIS selection reduces to a one-parameter sequence of top-$k$ problems. Dinkelbach's method yields an algorithm with $\mathcal{O}(n)$ cost per iteration and finite termination. For fixed residualized inputs, the algorithm returns a globally optimal set for the univariate ratio objective, including the oracle-residualized partial linear model. With estimated nuisance functions, uniform denominator and generated-score stability imply approximation to the first-order oracle orthogonal-score objective; exact set recovery follows under a separation condition. Simulations and applications show that the method recovers exact MIS that were previously computationally inaccessible.

Text-to-Image (T2I) models have made significant strides in visual realism and semantic consistency, yet they often perpetuate and amplify societal biases. Existing evaluation methods typically address only single-dimensional biases, lacking perspectives to uncover model biases at social-related deeper semantic levels. We introduce HoloFair, a comprehensive benchmark framework for multidimensional demographic bias analysis. Built upon our large-scale fairness-oriented dataset and the SpaFreq (Spatial-Frequency) attribute classifier, this framework proposes the Multi-attribute, Group-wise Bias Index (MGBI) metric, designed to assess both intrinsic diversity and conditional biases. Beyond evaluation, we further introduce Fair-GRPO, a reinforcement-learning-based debiasing method that alters the distribution of generative models through a designed multi-objective reward function. E.g., experiments on the SD3.5-Medium model demonstrate that Fair-GRPO significantly improves multidimensional fairness while maintaining high image quality. We also analyze potential reward hacking phenomena and provide corresponding mitigation strategies.

Foundation models are increasingly central to high-stakes AI systems, and governance frameworks now depend on evaluations to assess their risks and capabilities. Although general capability evaluations are widespread, social impact assessments covering bias, fairness, privacy, environmental costs, and labor remain uneven. To characterize this landscape, we conduct the first comprehensive analysis of social impact evaluation reporting, examining 186 first-party release reports and 248 third-party evaluation sources, supplemented by developer interviews. We find a stark division of labor: first-party reporting is sparse, often superficial, and declining in areas like environmental impact and bias, while third-party evaluators provide broader, more rigorous coverage of bias, harmful content, and performance disparities. However, only developers can authoritatively report on data provenance, content moderation labor, costs, and infrastructure, yet interviews reveal these disclosures are deprioritized unless tied to product adoption or compliance. Current practices leave major gaps in assessing societal impacts, underscoring the need for policies that mandate developer transparency, strengthen independent evaluation ecosystems, and create shared infrastructure for aggregating third-party evaluations.

The scaling-law era has transformed artificial intelligence (AI) from research into a global industry, but its rapid growth also raises concerns over energy usage, carbon emissions, and environmental sustainability. Unlike traditional sectors, the AI industry still lacks systematic carbon accounting methods that support large-scale estimates without reproducing the original training process. This leaves open questions about how large the problem is today and how large it might be in the near future. Given its central role in hosting open-source AI models, the Hugging Face (HF) platform provides a large-scale and publicly accessible corpus for carbon accounting. We estimate aggregate training emissions of HF open-source models using available emissions, energy, compute, and model metadata. To address uneven disclosure quality, we introduce a tiered approach to handle incomplete metadata, supported by empirical regressions that assess estimation reliability. We further introduce AI training carbon intensity (ATCI, emissions per compute), a metric to assess the sustainability efficiency of model training. Our results show that training the most popular open-source models (with over 5,000 downloads) has already resulted in approximately 6.0×10^4 metric tons of carbon emissions. Overall, this paper provides a scalable, empirically grounded framework for estimating training emissions from incomplete disclosures and informing future carbon reporting standards in the AI industry. Data and code are available at https://github.com/insait-institute/HuggingCarbon.

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) inherit social biases from large-scale pretraining data, and these biases can amplify in downstream tasks, leading to systematic performance disparities across sensitive groups. Due to the high training cost and the risk of catastrophic forgetting, recent research has focused more on lightweight \emph{test-time} debiasing, aiming to obtain an ideal fair embedding for each query. However, such point-based corrections are often unstable and become notably weaker in multi-class settings, where group structure cannot be adequately captured by a single point. Therefore, we propose W4D, a distributional debiasing framework that reframes fairness as aligning query embedding distributions to group reference distributions under the Wasserstein distance, which provides a geometry-aware notion of discrepancy beyond mean shifts. To make this alignment practical at test-time, W4D introduces probabilistic prompts that induce controlled distributional perturbations and optimizes a Wasserstein-based objective to reduce cross-group disparity while preserving task-relevant semantics. This distributional perspective improves robustness in multi-class debiasing and yields a stronger fairness--utility trade-off across diverse VLM downstream evaluations. Our code is available at https://github.com/QDRhhhh/W4D.

Vision-Language models (VLMs), such as CLIP, achieve powerful zero-shot classification. However, their predictions remain sensitive to spurious correlations, where contextual cues dominate over semantic content. Earlier solutions typically rely on fine-tuning or prompt engineering, which either undermine the advantages of pre-trained models or are prone to hallucination. In this work, we propose Density-Aware Translation (DAT) that refines image-text similarity scores using a local geometric density term derived from group reference sets. Our approach is motivated by the phenomenon that CLIP embeddings exhibit a modality gap and lie on an anisotropic shell in the feature space: common patterns cluster near the mean, while rare patterns are pushed outward. This geometry creates uneven alignment, where spurious correlations are amplified while semantically meaningful but rare cues are marginalised. To address this, we employ a relative measure to rescale similarities based on embedding density, suppressing overconfident scores in diffuse regions while preserving dense, semantically consistent matches. Experimental results on benchmark datasets demonstrate consistent improvements in worst-group and average accuracy, highlighting density-aware translation as a simple and effective calibration mechanism for reliable zero-shot classification using multimodal models.