Breaking the Dyadic Barrier: Rethinking Fairness in Link Prediction Beyond Demographic Parity

Link prediction is a fundamental task in graph machine learning with applications, ranging from social recommendation to knowledge graph completion. Fairness in this setting is critical, as biased predictions can exacerbate societal inequalities. Prior work adopts a dyadic definition of fairness, enforcing fairness through demographic parity between intra-group and inter-group link predictions. However, we show that this dyadic framing can obscure underlying disparities across subgroups, allowing systemic biases to go undetected. Moreover, we argue that demographic parity does not meet desired properties for fairness assessment in ranking-based tasks such as link prediction. We formalize the limitations of existing fairness evaluations and propose a framework that enables a more expressive assessment. Additionally, we propose a lightweight post-processing method combined with decoupled link predictors that effectively mitigates bias and achieves state-of-the-art fairness-utility trade-offs.

Better Fair than Sorry: Adversarial Missing Data Imputation for Fair GNNs

This paper addresses the problem of learning fair Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) under missing protected attributes. GNNs have achieved state-of-the-art results in many relevant tasks where decisions might disproportionately impact specific communities. However, existing work on fair GNNs assumes that either protected attributes are fully-observed or that the missing data imputation is fair. In practice, biases in the imputation will be propagated to the model outcomes, leading them to overestimate the fairness of their predictions. We address this challenge by proposing Better Fair than Sorry (BFtS), a fair missing data imputation model for protected attributes used by fair GNNs. The key design principle behind BFtS is that imputations should approximate the worst-case scenario for the fair GNN -- i.e. when optimizing fairness is the hardest. We implement this idea using a 3-player adversarial scheme where two adversaries collaborate against the fair GNN. Experiments using synthetic and real datasets show that BFtS often achieves a better fairness $\times$ accuracy trade-off than existing alternatives.

Fair Feature Importance Scores for Interpreting Tree-Based Methods and Surrogates

Across various sectors such as healthcare, criminal justice, national security, finance, and technology, large-scale machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) systems are being deployed to make critical data-driven decisions. Many have asked if we can and should trust these ML systems to be making these decisions. Two critical components are prerequisites for trust in ML systems: interpretability, or the ability to understand why the ML system makes the decisions it does, and fairness, which ensures that ML systems do not exhibit bias against certain individuals or groups. Both interpretability and fairness are important and have separately received abundant attention in the ML literature, but so far, there have been very few methods developed to directly interpret models with regard to their fairness. In this paper, we focus on arguably the most popular type of ML interpretation: feature importance scores. Inspired by the use of decision trees in knowledge distillation, we propose to leverage trees as interpretable surrogates for complex black-box ML models. Specifically, we develop a novel fair feature importance score for trees that can be used to interpret how each feature contributes to fairness or bias in trees, tree-based ensembles, or tree-based surrogates of any complex ML system. Like the popular mean decrease in impurity for trees, our Fair Feature Importance Score is defined based on the mean decrease (or increase) in group bias. Through simulations as well as real examples on benchmark fairness datasets, we demonstrate that our Fair Feature Importance Score offers valid interpretations for both tree-based ensembles and tree-based surrogates of other ML systems.