Fairness-Aware Reinforcement Learning (FAReL): A Framework for Transparent and Balanced Sequential Decision-Making

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.22232v1
• Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2025 11:42:14 GMT
• Title: Fairness-Aware Reinforcement Learning (FAReL): A Framework for Transparent and Balanced Sequential Decision-Making
• Authors: Alexandra Cimpean, Nicole Orzan, Catholijn Jonker, Pieter Libin, Ann Nowé,
• Abstract summary: Equity in real-world sequential decision problems can be enforced using fairness-aware methods.<n>We propose a framework where multiple trade-offs can be explored.<n>We show that our framework learns policies that are more fair across multiple scenarios, with only minor loss in performance reward.
• Score: 41.53741129864172
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Equity in real-world sequential decision problems can be enforced using fairness-aware methods. Therefore, we require algorithms that can make suitable and transparent trade-offs between performance and the desired fairness notions. As the desired performance-fairness trade-off is hard to specify a priori, we propose a framework where multiple trade-offs can be explored. Insights provided by the reinforcement learning algorithm regarding the obtainable performance-fairness trade-offs can then guide stakeholders in selecting the most appropriate policy. To capture fairness, we propose an extended Markov decision process, $f$MDP, that explicitly encodes individuals and groups. Given this $f$MDP, we formalise fairness notions in the context of sequential decision problems and formulate a fairness framework that computes fairness measures over time. We evaluate our framework in two scenarios with distinct fairness requirements: job hiring, where strong teams must be composed while treating applicants equally, and fraud detection, where fraudulent transactions must be detected while ensuring the burden on customers is fairly distributed. We show that our framework learns policies that are more fair across multiple scenarios, with only minor loss in performance reward. Moreover, we observe that group and individual fairness notions do not necessarily imply one another, highlighting the benefit of our framework in settings where both fairness types are desired. Finally, we provide guidelines on how to apply this framework across different problem settings.

Related papers

• Intersectional Fairness via Mixed-Integer Optimization [2.664154603948153]
  We argue that true fairness requires addressing bias at the intersections of protected groups.<n>We propose a unified framework that leverages Mixed-Integer Optimization (MIO) to train intersectionally fair and intrinsically interpretable classifiers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-27T13:29:25Z)
• A General Incentives-Based Framework for Fairness in Multi-agent Resource Allocation [4.930376365020355]
  We introduce the General Incentives-based Framework for Fairness (GIFF)<n>GIFF is a novel approach for fair multi-agent resource allocation that infers fair decision-making from standard value functions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-30T17:37:51Z)
• FedFACT: A Provable Framework for Controllable Group-Fairness Calibration in Federated Learning [23.38141950440522]
  We propose a controllable federated group-fairness calibration framework, named FedFACT.<n>FedFACT identifies the Bayes-optimal classifiers under both global and local fairness constraints.<n>We show that FedFACT consistently outperforms baselines in balancing accuracy and global-local fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-04T09:39:57Z)
• Testing Fairness with Utility Tradeoffs: A Wasserstein Projection Approach [6.378410364292642]
  We propose a statistical hypothesis testing framework that jointly evaluates approximate fairness and utility.<n>Our framework builds on the strong demographic parity criterion and incorporates a utility measure motivated by the potential outcomes framework.<n>We show that the test is computationally tractable, interpretable, broadly applicable across machine learning models, and extendable to more general settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-16T20:29:06Z)
• Finite-Sample and Distribution-Free Fair Classification: Optimal Trade-off Between Excess Risk and Fairness, and the Cost of Group-Blindness [14.421493372559762]
  We quantify the impact of enforcing algorithmic fairness and group-blindness in binary classification under group fairness constraints. We propose a unified framework for fair classification that provides distribution-free and finite-sample fairness guarantees with controlled excess risk.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T20:04:17Z)
• Peer-induced Fairness: A Causal Approach for Algorithmic Fairness Auditing [0.0]
  The European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act takes effect on 1 August 2024. High-risk AI applications must adhere to stringent transparency and fairness standards. We propose a novel framework, which combines the strengths of counterfactual fairness and peer comparison strategy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-05T15:35:34Z)
• FFB: A Fair Fairness Benchmark for In-Processing Group Fairness Methods [84.1077756698332]
  This paper introduces the Fair Fairness Benchmark (textsfFFB), a benchmarking framework for in-processing group fairness methods. We provide a comprehensive analysis of state-of-the-art methods to ensure different notions of group fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-15T19:51:28Z)
• 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)
• Fairness in Matching under Uncertainty [78.39459690570531]
  algorithmic two-sided marketplaces have drawn attention to the issue of fairness in such settings. We axiomatize a notion of individual fairness in the two-sided marketplace setting which respects the uncertainty in the merits. We design a linear programming framework to find fair utility-maximizing distributions over allocations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-08T00:30:32Z)
• Beyond Individual and Group Fairness [90.4666341812857]
  We present a new data-driven model of fairness that is guided by the unfairness complaints received by the system. Our model supports multiple fairness criteria and takes into account their potential incompatibilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-21T14:14:44Z)
• Robust Optimization for Fairness with Noisy Protected Groups [85.13255550021495]
  We study the consequences of naively relying on noisy protected group labels. We introduce two new approaches using robust optimization. We show that the robust approaches achieve better true group fairness guarantees than the naive approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-21T14:58:37Z)

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.