Procedural Fairness in Multi-Agent Bandits

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.10600v1
• Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2026 17:11:51 GMT
• Title: Procedural Fairness in Multi-Agent Bandits
• Authors: Joshua Caiata, Carter Blair, Kate Larson,
• Abstract summary: We introduce a new fairness objective, procedural fairness, which provides equal decision-making power for all agents.<n>We prove that different fairness notions prioritize fundamentally different and incompatible values, highlighting that fairness requires explicit normative choices.
• Score: 6.6764415968019195
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• 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. However, evidence in psychology, economics, and Rawlsian theory suggests that fairness is also about process and who gets a say in the decisions being made. We introduce a new fairness objective, procedural fairness, which provides equal decision-making power for all agents, lies in the core, and provides for proportionality in outcomes. Empirical results confirm that fairness notions based on optimizing for outcomes sacrifice equal voice and representation, while the sacrifice in outcome-based fairness objectives (like equality and utilitarianism) is minimal under procedurally fair policies. We further prove that different fairness notions prioritize fundamentally different and incompatible values, highlighting that fairness requires explicit normative choices. This paper argues that procedural legitimacy deserves greater focus as a fairness objective, and provides a framework for putting procedural fairness into practice.

Related papers

• Double Fairness Policy Learning: Integrating Action Fairness and Outcome Fairness in Decision-making [25.90320742385333]
  Policy learning induces two distinct fairness targets: action fairness (equitable action assignments) and outcome fairness (equitable downstream consequences)<n>We propose a novel double fairness learning (DFL) framework that explicitly manages the trade-off among three objectives: action fairness, outcome fairness, and trustworthy value.<n>In applications to a motor third-party liability insurance dataset and an entrepreneurship training dataset, DFL substantially improves both action and outcome fairness while incurring only a modest reduction in overall value.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-27T04:36:19Z)
• The AI Fairness Myth: A Position Paper on Context-Aware Bias [0.0]
  We argue that fairness sometimes requires deliberate, context-aware preferential treatment of historically marginalized groups.<n>Rather than viewing bias solely as a flaw to eliminate, we propose a framework that embraces corrective, intentional biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-02T02:47:32Z)
• What's Distributive Justice Got to Do with It? Rethinking Algorithmic Fairness from the Perspective of Approximate Justice [1.8434042562191815]
  We argue that in the context of imperfect decision-making systems, we should not only care about what the ideal distribution of benefits/harms among individuals would look like. This requires us to rethink the way in which we, as algorithmic fairness researchers, view distributive justice and use fairness criteria.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-17T11:13:23Z)
• Fairness-Accuracy Trade-Offs: A Causal Perspective [58.06306331390586]
  We analyze the tension between fairness and accuracy from a causal lens for the first time.<n>We show that enforcing a causal constraint often reduces the disparity between demographic groups.<n>We introduce a new neural approach for causally-constrained fair learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T11:19:52Z)
• Consistent End-to-End Estimation for Counterfactual Fairness [56.9060492313073]
  We propose a novel counterfactual fairness predictor for making predictions under counterfactual fairness.<n>We provide theoretical guarantees that our method is effective in ensuring the notion of counterfactual fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-26T17:58:39Z)
• Navigating Fairness Measures and Trade-Offs [0.0]
  I show that by using Rawls' notion of justice as fairness, we can create a basis for navigating fairness measures and the accuracy trade-off. This also helps to close part of the gap between philosophical accounts of distributive justice and the fairness literature.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-17T13:45:47Z)
• 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)
• Causal Fairness for Outcome Control [68.12191782657437]
  We study a specific decision-making task called outcome control in which an automated system aims to optimize an outcome variable $Y$ while being fair and equitable. In this paper, we first analyze through causal lenses the notion of benefit, which captures how much a specific individual would benefit from a positive decision. We then note that the benefit itself may be influenced by the protected attribute, and propose causal tools which can be used to analyze this.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-08T09:31:18Z)
• 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)
• Are There Exceptions to Goodhart's Law? On the Moral Justification of Fairness-Aware Machine Learning [14.428360876120333]
  We argue that fairness measures are particularly sensitive to Goodhart's law. We present a framework for moral reasoning about the justification of fairness metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-17T09:26:39Z)
• Towards the Right Kind of Fairness in AI [3.723553383515688]
  "Fairness Compass" is a tool which makes identifying the most appropriate fairness metric for a given system a simple, straightforward procedure. We argue that documenting the reasoning behind the respective decisions in the course of this process can help to build trust from the user.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-16T21:12:30Z)
• Algorithmic Decision Making with Conditional Fairness [48.76267073341723]
  We define conditional fairness as a more sound fairness metric by conditioning on the fairness variables. We propose a Derivable Conditional Fairness Regularizer (DCFR) to track the trade-off between precision and fairness of algorithmic decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-18T12:56:28Z)

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.