Machine learning algorithms and their training datasets have grown substantially in both size and complexity over the past decade. This increased model complexity has made it challenging to interpret and predict their behavior in unobserved scenarios. Hence, many applications that involve societal decisions still rely on simple, interpretable models like linear regression, often after feature engineering. Examples of such applications include predicting national housing prices, estimating wages across industries, forecasting loan amounts across banks, predicting life insurance premiums across groups, and projecting energy consumption across communities [CGKMN24]. A shared safety and sometimes legal concern across the above applications is the potential for wildly different model qualities for different distributions, i.e., outputting a notably worse model for some source data distributions [Dat14; BS16; HPS16; VVB18; SBFVV19; BHJKR21; CGNSG23; Cho16; KLMR18; ADW19; CGKMN24; SVWZ24].

In practice, many models from a function class can fit a dataset almost equally well. This collection of near-optimal models is known as the Rashomon set. Prior work has shown that the Rashomon set offers flexibility in choosing models aligned with secondary objectives like interpretability or fairness. However, it is unclear how far this flexibility extends to different trustworthy criteria, especially given that most trustworthy machine learning systems today still rely on complex specialized optimization procedures. Is the Rashomon set all you need for trustworthy model selection?

Condensing large datasets into smaller synthetic counterparts has demonstrated its promise for image classification. However, previous research has overlooked a crucial concern in image recognition: ensuring that models trained on condensed datasets are unbiased towards protected attributes (PA), such as gender and race. Our investigation reveals that dataset distillation fails to alleviate the unfairness towards minority groups within original datasets.

Frameworks for ensuring fairness in machine learning typically focus on learning fair models from existing data. But this endeavor is often undermined by biases already present in that data. We therefore look to modify the data acquisition process itself to help gather fairer data that is inherently more suitable for training fair predictors. To this end, we introduce FairBED, which provides novel formulations for quantifying the fairness of datasets themselves based on the idea that fair datasets should be uninformative about sensitive attributes. We then use this to construct practical fairness-aware Bayesian experimental design (BED) objectives that maximize expected information gain about the target quantity of interest while minimizing expected information gain about sensitive attributes. We further derive a theoretical link between FairBED and demographic parity, and show empirically that models trained on data gathered using FairBED provide improved fairness-accuracy trade-offs compared to randomly acquired data and conventional BED.

This position paper argues that the theoretical inconsistency often observed among Responsible AI (RAI) metrics, such as differing fairness definitions or trade-offs between accuracy and privacy, should be embraced as a valuable feature rather than a flaw to be eliminated. We contend that navigating these inconsistencies, by treating metrics as divergent objectives, yields three key benefits: (1) Normative Pluralism: maintaining a full suite of potentially contradictory metrics ensures that the diverse moral stances and stakeholder values inherent in RAI are adequately represented; (2) Epistemological Completeness: using multiple, sometimes conflicting, metrics captures multifaceted ethical concepts more fully and preserves greater informational fidelity than any single, simplified definition; (3) Implicit Regularization: jointly optimizing for theoretically conflicting objectives discourages overfitting to any one metric, steering models toward solutions with better generalization and robustness under real-world complexities.

Federated learning (FL) is a distributed machine learning paradigm that enables multiple clients to collaboratively train a shared model without exposing their raw data. However, existing FL research has primarily focused on optimizing learning performance based on the assumption of uniform client participation, with few studies delving into performance fairness under inconsistent client participation, particularly in model-heterogeneous FL environments. In view of this challenge, we propose PHP-FL, a novel model-heterogeneous FL method that explicitly addresses scenarios with varying client participation probabilities to enhance both model accuracy and performance fairness. Specifically, we introduce a Dual-End Aligned ensemble Learning (DEAL) module, where small auxiliary models on clients are used for dual-end knowledge alignment and local ensemble learning, effectively tackling model heterogeneity without a public dataset. Furthermore, to mitigate update conflicts caused by inconsistent participation probabilities, we propose an Importance-driven Selective Parameter Update (ISPU) module, which accurately updates critical local parameters based on training progress. Finally, we implement PHP-FL on a lightweight FL platform with heterogeneous clients across three different client participation patterns. Extensive experiments under heterogeneous settings and diverse client participation patterns demonstrate that PHP-FL achieves state-of-the-art performance in both accuracy and fairness.

We consider matroid allocation problems under opportunity fairness constraints: resources need to be allocated to a set of agents under matroid constraints (which include classical problems such as bipartite matching). Agents are divided into C groups according to a sensitive attribute, and an allocation is opportunity-fair if each group receives the same share proportional to the maximum feasible allocation it could achieve in isolation. We study the Price of Fairness (PoF), i.e., the ratio between maximum size allocations and maximum size opportunity-fair allocations. We first provide a characterization of the PoF leveraging the underlying polymatroid structure of the allocation problem. Based on this characterization, we prove bounds on the PoF in various settings from fully adversarial (worst-case) to fully random. Notably, one of our main results considers an arbitrary matroid structure with agents randomly divided into groups. In this setting, we prove a PoF bound as a function of the (relative) size of the largest group. Our result implies that, as long as there is no dominant group (i.e., the largest group is not too large), opportunity fairness constraints do not induce any loss of social welfare (defined as the allocation size). Overall, our results give insights into which aspects of the problem's structure affect the trade-off between opportunity fairness and social welfare.

Large language models are increasingly used to support high-stakes decisions, potentially influencing who is granted bail or receives a loan. Naive chain-ofthought sampling can improve average decision accuracy, but has also been shown to amplify unfair bias. To address this challenge and enable the trustworthy use of reasoning models in high-stakes decision-making, we propose a framework for training a generalizable Fairness Reward Model (FRM). Our model assigns a fairness score to LLM reasoning, enabling the system to down-weight biased trajectories and favor equitable ones when aggregating decisions across reasoning chains. We show that a single Fairness Reward Model, trained on weakly supervised, LLM-annotated examples of biased versus unbiased reasoning, transfers across tasks, domains, and model families without additional fine-tuning. When applied to real-world decision-making tasks including recidivism prediction and social media moderation, our approach consistently improves fairness while matching, or even surpassing, baseline accuracy.

Strategic classification, where individuals modify their features to influence machine learning (ML) decisions, presents critical fairness challenges. While group fairness in this setting has been widely studied, individual fairness remains underexplored. We analyze threshold-based classifiers and prove that deterministic thresholds violate individual fairness. Then, we investigate the possibility of using a randomized classifier to achieve individual fairness. We introduce conditions under which a randomized classifier ensures individual fairness and leverage these conditions to find an optimal and individually fair randomized classifier through a linear programming problem. Additionally, we demonstrate that our approach can be extended to group fairness notions. Experiments on real-world datasets confirm that our method effectively mitigates unfairness and improves the fairness-accuracy trade-off.

As machine learning (ML) algorithms are increasingly used in medical image analysis, concerns have emerged about their potential biases against certain social groups. Although many approaches have been proposed to ensure the fairness of ML models, most existing works focus only on medical image diagnosis tasks, such as image classification and segmentation, and overlooked prognosis scenarios, which involve predicting the likely outcome or progression of a medical condition over time. To address this gap, we introduce FairTTE, the first comprehensive framework for assessing fairness in time-to-event (TTE) prediction in medical imaging. FairTTE encompasses a diverse range of imaging modalities and TTE outcomes, integrating cutting-edge TTE prediction and fairness algorithms to enable systematic and fine-grained analysis of fairness in medical image prognosis. Leveraging causal analysis techniques, FairTTE uncovers and quantifies distinct sources of bias embedded within medical imaging datasets. Our large-scale evaluation reveals that bias is pervasive across different imaging modalities and that current fairness methods offer limited mitigation. We further demonstrate a strong association between underlying bias sources and model disparities, emphasizing the need for holistic approaches that target all forms of bias. Notably, we find that fairness becomes increasingly difficult to maintain under distribution shifts, underscoring the limitations of existing solutions and the pressing need for more robust, equitable prognostic models.