As machine learning models increasingly impact society, their opaque nature poses challenges to trust and accountability, particularly in fairness contexts. Understanding how individual features influence model outcomes is crucial for building interpretable and equitable models. While feature importance metrics for accuracy are well-established, methods for assessing feature contributions to fairness remain underexplored. We propose two model-agnostic approaches to measure fair feature importance. First, we propose to compare model fairness before and after permuting feature values. This simple intervention-based approach decouples a feature and model predictions to measure its contribution to training. Second, we evaluate the fairness of models trained with and without a given feature. This occlusion-based score enjoys dramatic computational simplification via minipatch learning. Our empirical results reflect the simplicity and effectiveness of our proposed metrics for multiple predictive tasks. Both methods offer simple, scalable, and interpretable solutions to quantify the influence of features on fairness, providing new tools for responsible machine learning development.

The deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs) in high-stakes medical settings poses a critical AI alignment challenge, as models can inherit and amplify societal biases, leading to significant disparities. Existing fairness evaluation methods fall short in these contexts as they typically use simplistic metrics that overlook the multi-dimensional nature of medical harms. This also promotes models that are fair only because they are clinically inert, defaulting to safe but potentially inaccurate outputs. To address this gap, our contributions are mainly two-fold: first, we construct two large-scale, controlled benchmarks (ED-Triage and Opioid Analgesic Recommendation) from MIMIC-IV, comprising over 50,000 prompts with twelve race x gender variants and three context tiers. Second, we propose a multi-metric framework - Multi-faceted Fairness Assessment based on hARMs ($mFARM$) to audit fairness for three distinct dimensions of disparity (Allocational, Stability, and Latent) and aggregate them into an $mFARM$ score. We also present an aggregated Fairness-Accuracy Balance (FAB) score to benchmark and observe trade-offs between fairness and prediction accuracy. We empirically evaluate four open-source LLMs (Mistral-7B, BioMistral-7B, Qwen-2.5-7B, Bio-LLaMA3-8B) and their finetuned versions under quantization and context variations. Our findings showcase that the proposed $mFARM$ metrics capture subtle biases more effectively under various settings. We find that most models maintain robust performance in terms of $mFARM$ score across varying levels of quantization but deteriorate significantly when the context is reduced. Our benchmarks and evaluation code are publicly released to enhance research in aligned AI for healthcare.

Voice biomarkers--human-generated acoustic signals such as speech, coughing, and breathing--are promising tools for scalable, non-invasive detection and monitoring of mental health and neurodegenerative diseases. Yet, their clinical adoption remains constrained by inconsistent quality and limited usability of publicly available datasets. To address this gap, we present the first systematic FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) evaluation of 27 publicly available voice biomarker datasets focused on these disease areas. Using the FAIR Data Maturity Model and a structured, priority-weighted scoring method, we assessed FAIRness at subprinciple, principle, and composite levels. Our analysis revealed consistently high Findability but substantial variability and weaknesses in Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability. Mental health datasets exhibited greater variability in FAIR scores, while neurodegenerative datasets were slightly more consistent. Repository choice also significantly influenced FAIRness scores. To enhance dataset quality and clinical utility, we recommend adopting structured, domain-specific metadata standards, prioritizing FAIR-compliant repositories, and routinely applying structured FAIR evaluation frameworks. These findings provide actionable guidance to improve dataset interoperability and reuse, thereby accelerating the clinical translation of voice biomarker technologies.

Large language models are increasingly used to support high-stakes decisions, potentially influencing who is granted bail or receives a loan. Naive chain-of-thought 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. Applied to real-world decision-making tasks including recidivism prediction and social media moderation, we show that our approach consistently improves fairness while matching, or even surpassing, baseline accuracy.

Peer-to-peer (P2P) trading is increasingly recognized as a key mechanism for decentralized market regulation, yet existing approaches often lack robust frameworks to ensure fairness. This paper presents FairMarket-RL, a novel hybrid framework that combines Large Language Models (LLMs) with Reinforcement Learning (RL) to enable fairness-aware trading agents. In a simulated P2P microgrid with multiple sellers and buyers, the LLM acts as a real-time fairness critic, evaluating each trading episode using two metrics: Fairness-To-Buyer (FTB) and Fairness-Between-Sellers (FBS). These fairness scores are integrated into agent rewards through scheduled λ-coefficients, forming an adaptive LLM-guided reward shaping loop that replaces brittle, rule-based fairness constraints. Agents are trained using Independent Proximal Policy Optimization (IPPO) and achieve equitable outcomes, fulfilling over 90% of buyer demand, maintaining fair seller margins, and consistently reaching FTB and FBS scores above 0.80. The training process demonstrates that fairness feedback improves convergence, reduces buyer shortfalls, and narrows profit disparities between sellers. With its language-based critic, the framework scales naturally, and its extension to a large power distribution system with household prosumers illustrates its practical applicability. FairMarket-RL thus offers a scalable, equity-driven solution for autonomous trading in decentralized energy systems.

Large Vision Language Models (LVLMs) have achieved remarkable progress in multimodal tasks, yet they also exhibit notable social biases. These biases often manifest as unintended associations between neutral concepts and sensitive human attributes, leading to disparate model behaviors across demographic groups. While existing studies primarily focus on detecting and quantifying such biases, they offer limited insight into the underlying mechanisms within the models. To address this gap, we propose an explanatory framework that combines information flow analysis with multi-round dialogue evaluation, aiming to understand the origin of social bias from the perspective of imbalanced internal information utilization. Specifically, we first identify high-contribution image tokens involved in the model's reasoning process for neutral questions via information flow analysis. Then, we design a multi-turn dialogue mechanism to evaluate the extent to which these key tokens encode sensitive information. Extensive experiments reveal that LVLMs exhibit systematic disparities in information usage when processing images of different demographic groups, suggesting that social bias is deeply rooted in the model's internal reasoning dynamics. Furthermore, we complement our findings from a textual modality perspective, showing that the model's semantic representations already display biased proximity patterns, thereby offering a cross-modal explanation of bias formation.

With the rise of machine learning techniques, ensuring the fairness of decisions made by machine learning algorithms has become of great importance in critical applications. However, measuring fairness often requires full access to the model parameters, which compromises the confidentiality of the models. In this paper, we propose a solution using zero-knowledge proofs, which allows the model owner to convince the public that a machine learning model is fair while preserving the secrecy of the model. To circumvent the efficiency barrier of naively proving machine learning inferences in zero-knowledge, our key innovation is a new approach to measure fairness only with model parameters and some aggregated information of the input, but not on any specific dataset. To achieve this goal, we derive new bounds for the fairness of logistic regression and deep neural network models that are tighter and better reflecting the fairness compared to prior work. Moreover, we develop efficient zero-knowledge proof protocols for common computations involved in measuring fairness, including the spectral norm of matrices, maximum, absolute value, and fixed-point arithmetic. We have fully implemented our system, FairZK, that proves machine learning fairness in zero-knowledge. Experimental results show that FairZK is significantly faster than the naive approach and an existing scheme that use zero-knowledge inferences as a subroutine. The prover time is improved by 3.1x--1789x depending on the size of the model and the dataset. FairZK can scale to a large model with 47 million parameters for the first time, and generates a proof for its fairness in 343 seconds. This is estimated to be 4 orders of magnitude faster than existing schemes, which only scale to small models with hundreds to thousands of parameters.

As large language models become integral to high-stakes applications, ensuring their robustness and fairness is critical. Despite their success, large language models remain vulnerable to adversarial attacks, where small perturbations, such as synonym substitutions, can alter model predictions, posing risks in fairness-critical areas, such as gender bias mitigation, and safety-critical areas, such as toxicity detection. While formal verification has been explored for neural networks, its application to large language models remains limited. This work presents a holistic verification framework to certify the robustness of transformer-based language models, with a focus on ensuring gender fairness and consistent outputs across different gender-related terms. Furthermore, we extend this methodology to toxicity detection, offering formal guarantees that adversarially manipulated toxic inputs are consistently detected and appropriately censored, thereby ensuring the reliability of moderation systems. By formalizing robustness within the embedding space, this work strengthens the reliability of language models in ethical AI deployment and content moderation.

Regression-based predictive analytics used in modern kidney transplantation is known to inherit biases from training data. This leads to social discrimination and inefficient organ utilization, particularly in the context of a few social groups. Despite this concern, there is limited research on fairness in regression and its impact on organ utilization and placement. This paper introduces three novel divergence-based group fairness notions: ( i) independence, ( ii) separation, and ( iii) sufficiency to assess the fairness of regression-based analytics tools. In addition, fairness preferences are investigated from crowd feedback, in order to identify a socially accepted group fairness criterion for evaluating these tools. A total of 85 participants were recruited from the Prolific crowdsourcing platform, and a Mixed-Logit discrete choice model was used to model fairness feedback and estimate social fairness preferences. The findings clearly depict a strong preference towards the separation and sufficiency fairness notions, and that the predictive analytics is deemed fair with respect to gender and race groups, but unfair in terms of age groups.

Fairness-aware learning aims to mitigate discrimination against specific protected social groups (e.g., those categorized by gender, ethnicity, age) while minimizing predictive performance loss. Despite efforts to improve fairness in machine learning, prior studies have shown that many models remain unfair when measured against various fairness metrics. In this paper, we examine whether the way training and testing data are sampled affects the reliability of reported fairness metrics. Since training and test sets are often randomly sampled from the same population, bias present in the training data may still exist in the test data, potentially skewing fairness assessments. To address this, we propose FairMatch, a post-processing method that applies propensity score matching to evaluate and mitigate bias. FairMatch identifies control and treatment pairs with similar propensity scores in the test set and adjusts decision thresholds for different subgroups accordingly. For samples that cannot be matched, we perform probabilistic calibration using fairness-aware loss functions. Experimental results demonstrate that our approach can (a) precisely locate subsets of the test data where the model is unbiased, and (b) significantly reduce bias on the remaining data. Overall, propensity score matching offers a principled way to improve both fairness evaluation and mitigation, without sacrificing predictive performance.