Fairness-Aware Performance Evaluation for Multi-Party Multi-Objective Optimization

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.22497v1
• Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2026 03:09:58 GMT
• Title: Fairness-Aware Performance Evaluation for Multi-Party Multi-Objective Optimization
• Authors: Zifan Zhao, Peilan Xu, Wenjian Luo,
• Abstract summary: We develop a fairness-aware performance evaluation framework for MPMOPs.<n>We formalize four axioms that a fairness-aware evaluation function for MPMOPs should satisfy.
• Score: 4.330406936708466
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: In multiparty multiobjective optimization problems, solution sets are usually evaluated using classical performance metrics, aggregated across DMs. However, such mean-based evaluations may be unfair by favoring certain parties, as they assume identical geometric approximation quality to each party's PF carries comparable evaluative significance. Moreover, prevailing notions of MPMOP optimal solutions are restricted to strictly common Pareto optimal solutions, representing a narrow form of cooperation in multiparty decision making scenarios. These limitations obscure whether a solution set reflects balanced relative gains or meaningful consensus among heterogeneous DMs. To address these issues, this paper develops a fairness-aware performance evaluation framework grounded in a generalized notion of consensus solutions. From a cooperative game-theoretic perspective, we formalize four axioms that a fairness-aware evaluation function for MPMOPs should satisfy. By introducing a concession rate vector to quantify acceptable compromises by individual DMs, we generalize the classical definition of MPMOP optimal solutions and embed classical performance metrics into a Nash-product-based evaluation framework, which is theoretically shown to satisfy all axioms. To support empirical validation, we further construct benchmark problems that extend existing MPMOP suites by incorporating consensus-deficient negotiation structures. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed evaluation framework is able to distinguish algorithmic performance in a manner consistent with consensus-aware fairness considerations. Specifically, algorithms converging toward strictly common solutions are assigned higher evaluation scores when such solutions exist, whereas in the absence of strictly common solutions, algorithms that effectively cover the commonly acceptable region are more favorably evaluated.

Related papers

• Is Softmax Loss All You Need? A Principled Analysis of Softmax-family Loss [91.61796429377041]
  The Softmax loss is one of the most widely employed surrogate objectives for classification and ranking tasks.<n>We investigate whether different surrogates achieve consistency with classification and ranking metrics, and analyze their gradient dynamics to reveal distinct convergence behaviors.<n>Our results establish a principled foundation and offer practical guidance for loss selections in large-class machine learning applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-30T09:24:52Z)
• Belief-Calibrated Multi-Agent Consensus Seeking for Complex NLP Tasks [45.14284473132228]
  We provide a theoretical framework for selecting optimal collaborators that maximize consensus stability.<n>Based on the theorems, we propose the Belief-Calibrated Consensus Seeking (BCCS) framework to facilitate stable consensus.<n> Experimental results on the MATH and MMLU benchmark datasets demonstrate that the proposed BCCS framework outperforms the best existing results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-07T17:53:34Z)
• A New Approach for Multicriteria Assessment in the Ranking of Alternatives Using Cardinal and Ordinal Data [0.0]
  We propose a novel MCA approach that combines two Virtual Gap Analysis (VGA) models.<n>The VGA framework, rooted in linear programming, is pivotal in the MCA methodology.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-10T04:00:48Z)
• A Principled Approach to Randomized Selection under Uncertainty: Applications to Peer Review and Grant Funding [61.86327960322782]
  We propose a principled framework for randomized decision-making based on interval estimates of the quality of each item.<n>We introduce MERIT, an optimization-based method that maximizes the worst-case expected number of top candidates selected.<n>We prove that MERIT satisfies desirable axiomatic properties not guaranteed by existing approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-23T19:59:30Z)
• Bounded Rationality for LLMs: Satisficing Alignment at Inference-Time [52.230936493691985]
  We propose SITAlign, an inference framework that addresses the multifaceted nature of alignment by maximizing a primary objective while satisfying threshold-based constraints on secondary criteria.<n>We provide theoretical insights by deriving sub-optimality bounds of our satisficing based inference alignment approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T17:56:05Z)
• Beyond Predictions: A Participatory Framework for Multi-Stakeholder Decision-Making [3.3044728148521623]
  We propose a participatory framework that reframes decision-making as a multi-stakeholder optimization problem.<n>Our modular, model-agnostic framework employs k-fold cross-validation to fine-tune user-provided prediction models.<n>A synthetic scoring mechanism aggregates user-defined preferences across multiple metrics to rank strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-12T16:27:40Z)
• Runtime Analysis of Evolutionary Algorithms for Multi-party Multi-objective Optimization [3.565735541536066]
  This paper presents the first theoretical analysis of the expected runtime-based evolutionary algorithms on bi-party multi-objective optimization problems (BPMOPs)<n>Our findings demonstrate that employing traditional multiobjective optimization algorithms to solve MPMOPs is both time-consuming and inefficient, as the resulting population contains many solutions that fail to achieve consensus among decision-makers.<n>We propose evolutionary multi-party multi-objectives (EMPMO) for pseudo-Boolean optimization and shortest path problems within a multi-party multi-objective context, maintain a common solution set among all parties.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-09T13:16:08Z)
• LLaMA-Berry: Pairwise Optimization for O1-like Olympiad-Level Mathematical Reasoning [56.273799410256075]
  The framework combines Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) with iterative Self-Refine to optimize the reasoning path. The framework has been tested on general and advanced benchmarks, showing superior performance in terms of search efficiency and problem-solving capability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T18:12:29Z)
• An Efficient Approach for Solving Expensive Constrained Multiobjective Optimization Problems [0.0]
  An efficient probabilistic selection based constrained multi-objective EA is proposed, referred to as PSCMOEA. It comprises novel elements such as (a) an adaptive search bound identification scheme based on the feasibility and convergence status of evaluated solutions. Numerical experiments are conducted on an extensive range of challenging constrained problems using low evaluation budgets to simulate ECMOPs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-22T02:32:58Z)
• Optimal Baseline Corrections for Off-Policy Contextual Bandits [61.740094604552475]
  We aim to learn decision policies that optimize an unbiased offline estimate of an online reward metric. We propose a single framework built on their equivalence in learning scenarios. Our framework enables us to characterize the variance-optimal unbiased estimator and provide a closed-form solution for it.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-09T12:52:22Z)
• Benchmarking PtO and PnO Methods in the Predictive Combinatorial Optimization Regime [59.27851754647913]
  Predictive optimization is the precise modeling of many real-world applications, including energy cost-aware scheduling and budget allocation on advertising. We develop a modular framework to benchmark 11 existing PtO/PnO methods on 8 problems, including a new industrial dataset for advertising. Our study shows that PnO approaches are better than PtO on 7 out of 8 benchmarks, but there is no silver bullet found for the specific design choices of PnO.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-13T13:19:34Z)
• Off-Policy Evaluation with Policy-Dependent Optimization Response [90.28758112893054]
  We develop a new framework for off-policy evaluation with a textitpolicy-dependent linear optimization response. We construct unbiased estimators for the policy-dependent estimand by a perturbation method. We provide a general algorithm for optimizing causal interventions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-25T20:25:37Z)

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.