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.
The paper introduces FAPE, a four‑stage framework for evaluating the post‑processing fairness intervention ThresholdOptimizer across eight diverse domains, including criminal justice, finance, healthcare, and education. It reports that the intervention reduces disparity in most high‑disparity cases but can worsen fairness when baseline disparities are low, and that a single deployment‑time audit is unreliable without continuous monitoring and baseline‑disparity screening.
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.
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.
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?
arXiv:2606. 26200v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Modern machine learning systems have outgrown their origins as isolated predictive constructs, evolving into complex socio-technical architectures that actively mediate human opportunity.
arXiv:2508. 08337v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Algorithmic fairness research has largely framed unfairness as discrimination along sensitive attributes.
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.
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:2610.01005v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As artificial intelligence is increasingly deployed, algorithmic unfairness has raised growing concerns and intensified demands for transparent fairnes...
The article discusses how social networks influence decision-making and opportunity distribution, noting that network-generating mechanisms often mirror existing inequalities and can amplify disparities when used in technology. It identifies ten network effects that bias the link between intended measurements and observed data, using academic hiring as a case study to show that network biases can be neither inherently harmful nor beneficial. The authors argue for a comprehensive, networked fairness framework that incorporates both distributive and procedural justice and involves all stakeholders.