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:2606. 17810v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: In this paper, we establish a set of theoretical impossibility results, termed the No-Free-Fairness theorems, that identify three fundamental sources of disparity in learning systems.
By Khoat Than
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:2605. 05882v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Artificial-intelligence systems are becoming ubiquitous in society, yet their predictions typically inherit biases with respect to protected attributes such as race, gender, or age.
By Filip Edstr\"om, Guilherme W. F. Barros, Tetiana Gorbach, Xavier de Luna
arXiv:2608. 09899v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In fair ranked link prediction, demographic parity ($\Delta_\mathrm{DP}$) is a common fairness metric.
By Valentijn Oldenburg, Floris de Kam, Stef de Wildt, Jarno Nilson Balk
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
arXiv:2606. 26369v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Scoring functions are used to represent the relevance of individual documents.
By Shubham Singh, Ian A. Kash, Mesrob I. Ohannessian
arXiv:2606. 20461v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Machine learning models have been shown to exhibit discriminatory outcomes or degraded performance for individuals at the intersection of multiple sensitive attributes, such as race and gender.
By Bruno Scarone, Alfredo Viola, Ren\'ee J. Miller
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:2509. 16462v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in high-stakes decision-making systems, where biased predictions can reinforce social and economic disparities.
By Mina Arzaghi, Alireza Dehghanpour Farashah, Florian Carichon, Jean-Fran\c{c}ois Plante, Golnoosh Farnadi
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
arXiv:2606. 06830v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Data-driven pricing is increasingly prevalent in sectors such as airlines, lending, insurance, and retail.
By Adam N. Elmachtoub, Hyemi Kim, Jonathan Y. Tan