Stairway to Fairness: Connecting Group and Individual Fairness

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.21334v1
• Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2025 05:25:05 GMT
• Title: Stairway to Fairness: Connecting Group and Individual Fairness
• Authors: Theresia Veronika Rampisela, Maria Maistro, Tuukka Ruotsalo, Falk Scholer, Christina Lioma,
• Abstract summary: We study the relationship of group and individual fairness through a comprehensive comparison of evaluation measures.<n>Our experiments with 8 runs across 3 datasets show that recommendations that are highly fair for groups can be very unfair for individuals.<n>Our finding is novel and useful for RS practitioners aiming to improve the fairness of their systems.
• Score: 20.285686122921526
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Fairness in recommender systems (RSs) is commonly categorised into group fairness and individual fairness. However, there is no established scientific understanding of the relationship between the two fairness types, as prior work on both types has used different evaluation measures or evaluation objectives for each fairness type, thereby not allowing for a proper comparison of the two. As a result, it is currently not known how increasing one type of fairness may affect the other. To fill this gap, we study the relationship of group and individual fairness through a comprehensive comparison of evaluation measures that can be used for both fairness types. Our experiments with 8 runs across 3 datasets show that recommendations that are highly fair for groups can be very unfair for individuals. Our finding is novel and useful for RS practitioners aiming to improve the fairness of their systems. Our code is available at: https://github.com/theresiavr/stairway-to-fairness.

Related papers

• Towards Large Language Models that Benefit for All: Benchmarking Group Fairness in Reward Models [16.977176752570617]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly powerful and accessible to human users.<n> Ensuring fairness across diverse demographic groups, i.e., group fairness, is a critical ethical concern.<n>This work benchmarks the group fairness of learned reward models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-10T19:39:39Z)
• Where Fact Ends and Fairness Begins: Redefining AI Bias Evaluation through Cognitive Biases [77.3489598315447]
  We argue that identifying the boundary between fact and fair is essential for meaningful fairness evaluation.<n>We introduce Fact-or-Fair, a benchmark with (i) objective queries aligned with descriptive, fact-based judgments, and (ii) subjective queries aligned with normative, fairness-based judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-09T10:54:11Z)
• Intersectional Two-sided Fairness in Recommendation [41.96733939002468]
  We propose a novel approach called Inter-sectional Two-sided Fairness Recommendation (ITFR) Our method utilizes a sharpness-aware loss to perceive disadvantaged groups, and then uses collaborative loss balance to develop consistent distinguishing abilities for different intersectional groups. Our proposed approach effectively alleviates the intersectional two-sided unfairness and consistently outperforms previous state-of-the-art methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-05T08:56:24Z)
• Causal Context Connects Counterfactual Fairness to Robust Prediction and Group Fairness [15.83823345486604]
  We motivatefactual fairness by showing that there is not a fundamental trade-off between fairness and accuracy. Counterfactual fairness can sometimes be tested by measuring relatively simple group fairness metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T16:07:57Z)
• Counterpart Fairness -- Addressing Systematic between-group Differences in Fairness Evaluation [17.495053606192375]
  When using machine learning to aid decision-making, it is critical to ensure that an algorithmic decision is fair and does not discriminate against specific individuals/groups. Existing group fairness methods aim to ensure equal outcomes across groups delineated by protected variables like race or gender. In cases where systematic differences between groups play a significant role in outcomes, these methods may overlook the influence of non-protected variables.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-29T15:41:12Z)
• DualFair: Fair Representation Learning at Both Group and Individual Levels via Contrastive Self-supervision [73.80009454050858]
  This work presents a self-supervised model, called DualFair, that can debias sensitive attributes like gender and race from learned representations. Our model jointly optimize for two fairness criteria - group fairness and counterfactual fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-15T07:13:54Z)
• How Robust is Your Fairness? Evaluating and Sustaining Fairness under Unseen Distribution Shifts [107.72786199113183]
  We propose a novel fairness learning method termed CUrvature MAtching (CUMA) CUMA achieves robust fairness generalizable to unseen domains with unknown distributional shifts. We evaluate our method on three popular fairness datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-04T02:37:50Z)
• Cascaded Debiasing: Studying the Cumulative Effect of Multiple Fairness-Enhancing Interventions [48.98659895355356]
  This paper investigates the cumulative effect of multiple fairness enhancing interventions at different stages of the machine learning (ML) pipeline. Applying multiple interventions results in better fairness and lower utility than individual interventions on aggregate. On the downside, fairness-enhancing interventions can negatively impact different population groups, especially the privileged group.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-08T09:20:58Z)
• Fair Group-Shared Representations with Normalizing Flows [68.29997072804537]
  We develop a fair representation learning algorithm which is able to map individuals belonging to different groups in a single group. We show experimentally that our methodology is competitive with other fair representation learning algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-17T10:49:49Z)
• Everything is Relative: Understanding Fairness with Optimal Transport [1.160208922584163]
  We present an optimal transport-based approach to fairness that offers an interpretable and quantifiable exploration of bias and its structure. Our framework is able to recover well known examples of algorithmic discrimination, detect unfairness when other metrics fail, and explore recourse opportunities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-20T13:57:53Z)
• Metric-Free Individual Fairness with Cooperative Contextual Bandits [17.985752744098267]
  Group fairness requires that different groups should be treated similarly which might be unfair to some individuals within a group. Individual fairness remains understudied due to its reliance on problem-specific similarity metrics. We propose a metric-free individual fairness and a cooperative contextual bandits algorithm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-13T03:10:35Z)
• Two Simple Ways to Learn Individual Fairness Metrics from Data [47.6390279192406]
  Individual fairness is an intuitive definition of algorithmic fairness that addresses some of the drawbacks of group fairness. The lack of a widely accepted fair metric for many ML tasks is the main barrier to broader adoption of individual fairness. We show empirically that fair training with the learned metrics leads to improved fairness on three machine learning tasks susceptible to gender and racial biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-19T23:47:15Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.