arXiv AI
The paper introduces the AR Fairness Metamodel, a structured framework for representing, analyzing, and comparing fairness scenarios. It incorporates key elements such as agents, resources, and their attributes, and supports both discrete and continuous fairness measures—including equality, equity, group fairness, individual fairness, the Gini index, the Theil index, Jain's fairness index, and a specific measure for Australia's Child Care Subsidy. The metamodel builds on the Tiles framework, offering modular components that can be connected to capture diverse fairness definitions, and includes formal proofs of relationships among group fairness, individual fairness, and envy‑freeness. An open‑source implementation of the Tiles framework is provided to facilitate practical fairness modeling and evaluation across various applications.
arXiv:2607. 17679v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: This is an invited commentary on the Psychometrika focus article "Fairness Issues and Evaluation in Psychometrics and AI/ML: What Can We Learn from Each Field?
By Youmi Suk
Despite groundbreaking advancements in generative models during the last decade, concerns about their lack of fairness, reinforcing societal inequalities and harming marginalized groups, remain under-...
The paper argues that fairness failures in generative models arise mainly from inadequate evaluation practices, making fairness findings hard to compare or use for deployment. It diagnoses common empirical and conceptual shortcomings in current methods and calls for a move toward standardized, generative‑specific evaluation. The authors introduce Fairness Cards, a minimal reporting artifact that explicitly documents evaluation choices—such as prompt families, counterfactual protocols, metrics, and refusal handling—to improve reproducibility, comparability, and accountability.
By Mariia Vladimirova, Jean-Yves Franceschi, Thibaut Issenhuth
The paper argues that traditional probabilistic fairness metrics can miss significant disparities in the actual consequences of decisions. By introducing a utility-based framework, the authors show that a process can satisfy ε-fairness yet still be maximally unfair when utilities are considered. They apply this framework to college admissions and credit‑risk assessment, demonstrating that equalizing probabilities alone may mask unequal utility outcomes across groups.
By Tolulope Fadina, Thorsten Schmidt
arXiv:2306.00636v3 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Many fairness criteria constrain the policy or choice of predictors, which can have unwanted consequences, in particular, when optimizing the...
By Frederik Hytting J{\o}rgensen, Sebastian Weichwald, Jonas Peters
FairLMs is a Python library designed to streamline fairness research in language models by unifying bias measurement, mitigation, and evaluation evidence. It offers 33 intrinsic and extrinsic metrics, 14 mitigation components across four intervention categories, 14 diagnostic tools, adapters for major Transformer architectures and hosted APIs, and benchmark loaders. The library enforces explicit declarations of model capabilities and input requirements, ensuring compatibility and reproducibility across components and datasets.
By Jiale Zhang, Michael Larionov, Zichong Wang, Zhipeng Yin, Wenbin Zhang
arXiv:2407. 14766v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: This paper presents a philosophical and experimental study of fairness interventions in AI classification, centered on the explainability and transparency of corrective methods, and on the opposition between two fairness criteria, namely Demographic Parity and Equalized Odds.
By Thomas Souverain, Paul \'Egr\'e
The paper "Fair Like Us? Auditing LLM Alignment in Resource Allocation" presents a method for evaluating how large language models reason about fairness in the allocation of scarce, indivisible resources. It compares LLMs’ first‑person fairness judgments with human responses across various scenarios, finding that models tend to favor stricter fairness constraints, exhibit more self‑interested behavior, and are sensitive to framing. The study also shows that current fine‑tuning datasets struggle to align LLM judgments with human ones.
By Qishen Han, Hadi Hosseini, Joshua Kavner, Samarth Khanna, Sujoy Sikdar, Lirong Xia
arXiv:2608.24400v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: We study multilevel fair resource allocation with tree-structured hierarchical relations among agents. At each level, the problem can be viewed local...
By Maxime Lucet, Nawal Benabbou, Aur\'elie Beynier, Nicolas Maudet
arXiv:2602. 16794v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Conformal prediction (CP) offers distribution-free uncertainty quantification for machine learning models, yet its interplay with fairness in downstream decision-making remains underexplored.
By Pengqi Liu, Zijun Yu, Mouloud Belbahri, Arthur Charpentier, Masoud Asgharian, Jesse C. Cresswell
arXiv:2608. 11251v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Fairness in AI systems has become more important with recent regulatory demands, such as the EU AI Act.
By Ivan Luciano Danesi, Chiara Frigerio, Fabio Maccaferri, Giorgio Alessandro Motta, Pietro Zecca
arXiv:2601. 10600v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: In the context of multi-agent multi-armed bandits (MA-MAB), fairness is often reduced to outcomes: maximizing welfare, reducing inequality, or balancing utilities.
By Joshua Caiata, Carter Blair, Kate Larson