NeurIPS 2026 论文列表

We study the problem of auditing the fairness of a given classifier under partial feedback, where true labels are available only for positively classified individuals (e.g., loan repayment outcomes are observed only for approved applicants). We introduce a novel cost model for acquiring additional labeled data, designed to more accurately reflect real-world costs such as credit assessment, loan processing, and potential defaults. Our goal is to find optimal fairness audit algorithms that are more cost-effective than random exploration and natural baselines. In our work, we consider two audit settings: a black-box model with no assumptions on the data distribution, and a mixture model, where features and true labels follow a mixture of exponential family distributions. In the black-box setting, we propose a near-optimal auditing algorithm and show that a natural baseline can be strictly suboptimal. In the mixture model case, we design a novel algorithm that achieves significantly lower audit cost than the black-box case under mild assumptions. Our approach develops novel connections between partial feedback and learning from truncated samples. We also extend known results on maximum-a-posteriori oracles for spherical Gaussian mixtures to handle exponential family mixtures, which may be of independent interest. Moreover, our algorithms apply to popular fairness metrics including demographic parity, equal opportunity, and equalized odds. Empirically, we demonstrate strong performance of our algorithms on real-world fair classification datasets like Adult Income and Law School, consistently outperforming natural baselines by around 50% in terms of audit cost.

Explainable AI (XAI) offers far-reaching consequences for human-AI collaboration, but the fundamental question of how best to evaluate these systems has proven frustratingly elusive. Methodologies typically revolve around either proxy metrics which tell us little about the utility of an explanation, or human evaluation which---while generally considered the gold standard---is expensive, difficult to scale, and challenging to reproduce. In this paper, we investigate if Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) can act as surrogate human participants to automate the evaluation of explainable AI. To do this, we first propose a ``purpose-grounded'' evaluation framework with specific metrics applicable to both MLLMs and human users alike. Then, we offer some conceptual insights as to why and when we can trust these models to automate this process. Lastly, we conduct extensive empirical testing across five purpose-grounded areas and nine popular MLLM APIs. Results indicate that all models trend positively, but OpenAI models (particularly GPT-5 mini) are the best aligned at replicating user responses, and for complex visual reasoning tasks more advanced modes (like GPT-5) perform best, which would be the recommended choices in practice. We expect our insights not to replace user testing, but rather to help XAI researchers complement their current evaluation methodologies and move the field away from heavy reliance on proxy metrics for measuring explanation utility.

Watermarking schemes for large language model output are evaluated almost exclusively on English text using each scheme's detection threshold and a narrow set of quality measurements. Multilingual deployment exposes evaluation-design choices that are inconsequential on English but determine conclusions cross-lingually. We propose an evaluation framework with four components: detection thresholds calibrated empirically per deployment context, a threshold-independent companion measurement that distinguishes calibration failures from detection failures, three disjoint quality measurement paradigms (distributional, paired-semantic, and reference-perplexity), and a generalized-entropy decomposition of cross-language disparity over a typological family partition. Applied to six watermarking schemes, three open-weight generators, eleven languages spanning four scripts and eight typological families, and both base and instruction-tuned regimes, the framework reveals failure modes that single-language single-paradigm evaluation cannot surface. Across detection and quality, observed disparity is predominantly between-family on the typological partition, indicating that cross-lingual fairness gaps in watermarking are structural to language properties rather than idiosyncratic to particular languages.

Neural contextual bandits support high-stakes decision systems---from clinical trial allocation to content recommendation. This paper investigates an adversarial threat, group-targeted suppression attacks (GTSA), in which an adversary selectively degrades performance for a demographic subgroup while preserving global performance metrics. We first show that under standard aggregate monitoring, GTSA with budget $B = \Omega(\sqrt{T})$ can induce $\Omega(T)$ group regret while maintaining only $o(1)$ deviation in observable global statistics, establishing that any defense that ignores group structure is fundamentally vulnerable. To address this vulnerability, we propose AnchorFair, a robust mitigation framework comprising three components: (i) a trust-weighted policy anchor with provable bounded drift, (ii) representation-stable demographic discovery via online clustering in a slowly evolving embedding space, and (iii) a demographic-aware exploration mechanism that adaptively amplifies learning for underrepresented or low-trust groups. We prove that \textsc{AnchorFair} achieves sublinear group regret $\tilde{O}(\sqrt{T})$ for all groups under GTSA.

We view fairness as a property of distributional stability. Rather than assessing a predictor under a fixed data distribution, we study how its predictions change under perturbations that modify the composition of protected groups. A predictor is fair if it remains stable under such shifts. Under this perspective, several classical notions of fairness arise as stability with respect to specific perturbations, with the associated unfairness gap given by a Lipschitz constant of a prediction-rate functional. This formulation also yields guarantees that hold uniformly over a range of demographic compositions at test time, without requiring knowledge of the deployment distribution. It leads to a learning procedure based on convex combinations of reweighted predictors, formulated as a second-order cone program, for which we establish generalization bounds. Experiments on standard benchmarks illustrate the approach.