Collaborative machine learning among financial institutions must be both group-fair and robust against deliberate adversarial manipulation. Existing fairness-aware aggregation methods remain formally vulnerable to fairness poisoning: a malicious client maximizing group disparity while preserving accuracy evades accuracy-based Byzantine defenses, and in our threat model FairFed's gap-based weighting can be gamed by an adversary who observes the global fairness score. We present Fairis, a server-side reweighting scheme in which each client's update receives the normalized weight $ω_k = \bar{w}_k / \sum_j \bar{w}_j$ built from the unnormalized score $\bar{w}_k = η- \mathcal{F}_k$, with $\mathcal{F}_k \in [0,1]$ the local Equal Opportunity Difference and $η> 1$ a security parameter. We prove three properties, Monotone Weight Reduction (MWR), Demographic Participation, and Non-Gamesmanship, extend MWR to colluding minority coalitions, and show that combining MWR with server-side norm clipping bounds the adversary's displacement of the global model by $ω_0 C$, strictly decreasing in its own reported disparity. Assuming honest score reporting, an assumption this paper does not discharge, Fairis is the only rule evaluated that guarantees every client strictly positive weight while provably reducing an adversary's weight monotonically in its bias; clipped FairFed can reach a lower weight but guarantees nothing and zeroes a client outright on Taiwan Credit. Against an adversary stealthy enough to evade accuracy-based defenses, within 0.04 accuracy of benign, Fairis cuts its weight by 41 to 54% below a size-blind control on Taiwan. On routine non-IID partitions no rule dominates, and a uniform-weighting ablation shows that containment tracks how far the adversary's score separates from the honest mean, providing none when the honest population is already unfair.
Differential privacy (DP) is increasingly deployed to limit membership inference risk in machine-learning systems. Prior work has shown that DP-SGD can widen accuracy disparities across demographic groups, but this framing treats fairness as a purely outcome-side concern. We argue that privacy cost, the information leakage borne by each group, is itself a form of harm, and adopt a compensatory-fairness framework in which a group that involuntarily bears greater privacy exposure is owed proportionally greater benefit from the system. From this principle we derive the \emph{Privacy-Cost Equity Ratio} (PCER), a group fairness metric defined as a group's positive prediction rate normalized by its per-group overfitting gap. By a standard membership inference bound, this overfitting gap upper-bounds each group's vulnerability to inference attacks, making PCER a conservative measure of benefit relative to exposure. PCER needs only per-group train and test accuracy (no shadow models), making it a practical post-hoc audit tool. We evaluate PCER alongside standard fairness metrics across six benchmark--attribute combinations spanning tabular and NLP domains, under DP-SGD at a range of privacy budgets, and validate the overfitting-gap proxy against a direct threshold membership-inference attack. The results reveal patterns that outcome-based metrics miss. On COMPAS, PCER uncovers a persistent double disadvantage: the protected group bears both greater privacy exposure and worse predictive outcomes, something demographic parity gap masks entirely. Sensitivity analysis shows very strong privacy guarantees collapse both groups' overfitting to a numerical floor, rendering exposure-based audits uninformative in that regime. Together, these findings show that fairness audits of privacy-preserving systems must account for who bears the cost of protection, not only who benefits from its outcomes.
Graph neural networks (GNNs) frequently encounter group fairness issues, often yielding biased predictions against specific demographic groups defined by sensitive attributes such as gender or race. While this challenge has motivated extensive research, most existing solutions rely on the strong assumption that demographics are fully available. To bypass this strict requirement, a few recent studies have attempted to use predicted demographics as proxies to enforce fairness constraints. However, predicted demographics may be inaccurate, resulting in the failure to improve fairness. In this work, we investigate the problem of graph fairness without demographic information and avoid the utilization of predicted demographics. Motivated by our observation that the gradient distributions of misclassified nodes implicitly encode demographic information, we first propose GradDist, a gradient-based metric that quantifies bias by measuring the distance between local modes within these distributions. To mitigate this bias, we propose Gradient-to-Fairness (Grad2Fair), a gradient-guided approach for group fairness without demographics. Due to the potential demographics in gradients, Grad2Fair directly leverages gradients to debias and eliminates demographic prediction, thereby enabling stable fairness performance. Experiments on several real-world datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of Grad2Fair, as evidenced by superior performance over baselines in most cases. Our code is available at https://github.com/ZzoomD/Grad2Fair.
Sangwon Jung, Sumin Yu, Sanghyuk Chun +1cs.CV cs.AI
The notion of algorithmic fairness has been actively explored from various aspects of fairness, such as counterfactual fairness (CF) and group fairness (GF). However, the exact relationship between CF and GF remains to be unclear, especially in image classification tasks; the reason is because we often cannot collect counterfactual samples regarding a sensitive attribute, essential for evaluating CF, from the existing images (\eg, a photo of the same person but with different secondary sex characteristics). In this paper, we construct new image datasets for evaluating CF by using a high-quality image editing method and carefully labeling with human annotators. Our datasets, \oursceleb and \ourslfw, build upon the popular image GF benchmarks; hence, we can evaluate CF and GF simultaneously. We empirically observe that CF does not imply GF in image classification, whereas previous studies on tabular datasets observed the opposite. We theoretically show that it could be due to the existence of a latent attribute $G$ that is correlated with, but not caused by, the sensitive attribute (\eg, secondary sex characteristics are highly correlated with hair length). From this observation, we propose a simple baseline, Counterfactual Knowledge Distillation (CKD), to mitigate such correlation with the sensitive attributes. Extensive experimental results on \oursceleb and \ourslfw demonstrate that CF-achieving models satisfy GF if we successfully reduce the reliance on $G$ (\eg, using CKD).
Clustering is increasingly used to support high-impact decisions, yet standard objectives such as $k$-means can produce clusterings that treat demographic groups unequally. Existing fair clustering methods typically optimize a single notion of fairness and often overlook how clustering costs interact with the geometry of the induced decision boundaries. We propose \textsc{UniFair}, a unified framework that jointly optimizes \emph{separation fairness} and \emph{social fairness}. Separation fairness encourages protected groups to lie farther from the induced decision boundaries, while social fairness reduces disparities in within-cluster distortion by penalizing group-wise clustering costs. We develop gradient-based optimization procedures for separation-fair and unified $k$-means objectives, and extend them to deep clustering by enforcing the same criteria in the latent space of an autoencoder. Experiments on tabular and image datasets show that \textsc{UniFair} reduces both boundary-related and cost-based group disparities with only a modest increase in clustering loss.
We show every multi-group learner in the transductive setting may incur a multiplicative penalty in its error rate on some group relative to the error rate achievable in the single-group setting, and the penalty can increasing linearly with the number of groups, up to roughly the square-root of the sample size. This stands in stark contrast to optimal multi-group learners in an analogous (group-realizable) statistical setting, where the penalty is always at most logarithmic in the sample size and independent of the number of groups.