Network Fairness: A Graph-Based Approach to Bias Mitigation

by

Author: Denis Avetisyan

A new framework leverages the structure of networks to address both individual and group biases in machine learning models.

Sheaf Diffusion, a technique for reconciling fairness metrics, falters when applied to populations fractured into distinct communities, demonstrating that algorithmic fairness is often undermined not by bias within a group, but by the inherent disparities <i>between</i> them - a reflection of how easily shared identity eclipses universal principles.
Sheaf Diffusion, a technique for reconciling fairness metrics, falters when applied to populations fractured into distinct communities, demonstrating that algorithmic fairness is often undermined not by bias within a group, but by the inherent disparities between them – a reflection of how easily shared identity eclipses universal principles.

This review introduces Fair Sheaf Diffusion, a method utilizing network topology and cellular sheaves to encode and mitigate algorithmic bias.

Despite growing reliance on machine learning in high-stakes decision-making, theoretical understandings of algorithmic fairness-particularly the interplay between individual and group equity-remain limited. This paper, ‘On the use of graph models to achieve individual and group fairness’, addresses this gap by introducing Fair Sheaf Diffusion (FSD), a novel framework leveraging network topology and cellular sheaves to encode and mitigate bias. FSD projects data into a bias-free space, offering a unified and interpretable approach to achieving both individual and group fairness with closed-form SHAP value expressions. Can this approach provide a robust pathway toward responsible AI systems that demonstrably balance accuracy with equitable outcomes across diverse populations?

The Illusion of Objectivity: Bias in Machine Learning

Machine learning models, while demonstrating remarkable capabilities, are susceptible to inheriting and even exacerbating existing societal biases present in the data used to train them. This occurs because these models learn patterns from historical data, which often reflects prejudiced or discriminatory practices. Consequently, algorithms can perpetuate unfair outcomes across various domains, from loan applications and hiring processes to criminal justice and healthcare. For instance, a facial recognition system trained primarily on images of one demographic group may exhibit significantly lower accuracy when identifying individuals from other groups, leading to misidentification and potentially harmful consequences. The issue isn’t malicious intent within the algorithms themselves, but rather a reflection of the biased world from which the training data originates, highlighting the critical need for careful data curation, algorithmic transparency, and ongoing monitoring to mitigate these unintended consequences.

Many approaches to algorithmic fairness prioritize group equity, aiming for equal outcomes across predefined demographic categories. However, this focus can obscure critical disparities within those groups and fail to address individual circumstances. A model achieving statistical parity – equal acceptance rates for different groups – may still unfairly deny opportunities to individuals who are similarly qualified but belong to a historically disadvantaged group. This stems from the fact that group-level metrics treat all members within a category as homogenous, ignoring the complex interplay of factors influencing individual merit and need. Consequently, a truly fair system requires moving beyond broad generalizations and considering the unique characteristics of each case, acknowledging that fairness is not simply about equal group outcomes, but equitable treatment for each individual based on their specific situation and qualifications.

The pursuit of equitable machine learning systems is often hampered by a fundamental trade-off: improving fairness can inadvertently diminish predictive accuracy, and vice versa. Developers frequently encounter scenarios where algorithms designed to mitigate bias – by, for instance, enforcing equal opportunity across demographic groups – experience a corresponding decrease in overall performance on the intended task. This isn’t a simple matter of choosing one over the other; a highly accurate but biased system can have devastating consequences, while a perfectly fair but inaccurate one is effectively useless. Consequently, a significant challenge lies in finding the optimal balance – a ‘sweet spot’ – where fairness constraints are satisfied without severely compromising the model’s utility, requiring sophisticated techniques and careful consideration of the specific application and its potential impact.

The Adult dataset demonstrates a trade-off between fairness metrics and prediction accuracy, indicating that improving fairness can reduce overall accuracy.
The Adult dataset demonstrates a trade-off between fairness metrics and prediction accuracy, indicating that improving fairness can reduce overall accuracy.

Relational Equity: A Network-Inspired Approach

Fair Sheaf Diffusion addresses individual fairness by representing data instances as nodes within a network, where edges denote relationships between them. This network topology allows the method to identify and group similar individuals based on their connectivity and feature proximity. The core principle is that individuals with similar network neighborhoods – sharing connections to the same other instances – should receive similar treatment from a machine learning model. This approach moves beyond solely considering individual features and incorporates relational information, mitigating unfairness that might arise from feature-based discrimination. By enforcing consistency in predictions for similar network-connected individuals, Fair Sheaf Diffusion aims to ensure equitable outcomes based on relational context, rather than isolated attributes.

Cellular sheaves provide a mathematical formalism for representing data as patches, or cells, and the relationships between them. These cells are constructed based on local neighborhoods within the data, allowing the model to capture inherent data structure. A sheaf then defines a consistent way to aggregate information across these cells, ensuring that predictions are locally consistent and respect the relationships defined by the data’s topology. Critically, this structure facilitates the incorporation of fairness constraints by allowing definitions of similarity between data points based on their shared neighborhood within the sheaf; this enables the enforcement of similar treatment for individuals residing within equivalent cellular structures, directly addressing concerns of disparate impact and promoting algorithmic fairness. The formalism relies on concepts from algebraic topology and category theory to rigorously define these relationships and ensure mathematical consistency.

Fair Sheaf Diffusion leverages the complementary strengths of network topology and sheaf theory to establish a solid basis for fair machine learning model development. Network topology defines relationships between data points, allowing the model to consider contextual similarities. Sheaf theory, a mathematical framework dealing with data assigned to topological spaces, provides a rigorous way to aggregate information while respecting these relationships and ensuring local consistency. This combination enables the model to propagate fairness constraints across the network, ensuring that similar individuals – as defined by their network connections – receive similar predictions or treatments. The resulting framework supports both accuracy and fairness by explicitly incorporating relational data and providing a mathematically sound approach to managing potential biases within the model.

The German dataset reveals a trade-off between fairness and accuracy, suggesting improvements in one metric may come at the expense of the other.
The German dataset reveals a trade-off between fairness and accuracy, suggesting improvements in one metric may come at the expense of the other.

Empirical Validation: Performance and Trade-offs

Fair Sheaf Diffusion was subjected to comprehensive performance evaluation using three established datasets: the GermanDataset, CompasDataset, and AdultDataset. Simulation results consistently demonstrate the model’s efficacy across these varied data distributions. Quantitative analysis indicates that Fair Sheaf Diffusion achieves state-of-the-art or highly competitive results when benchmarked against existing fairness-aware machine learning algorithms on these datasets. Specifically, the model was tested under multiple parameter configurations and evaluated based on both predictive accuracy and fairness metrics, providing robust evidence of its overall performance capabilities.

Simulations conducted using the GermanDataset, CompasDataset, and AdultDataset demonstrate that Fair Sheaf Diffusion achieves a balance between predictive accuracy and fairness metrics. While the model delivers competitive performance on both, an accuracy trade-off is observed, ranging from 3% to 13% depending on the dataset and configuration. This indicates that prioritizing fairness necessitates a quantifiable reduction in overall accuracy, a characteristic inherent in algorithms designed to mitigate bias and ensure equitable outcomes across different demographic groups.

Feature importance analysis was conducted utilizing both SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) values and PageRank centrality measures to determine the primary drivers of fair predictions generated by the model. SHAP values quantify each feature’s contribution to individual predictions, while PageRank, applied to the diffusion graph, identifies influential features propagating fairness constraints. This analysis facilitated model interpretability by highlighting the features most responsible for mitigating bias. Quantitative evaluation, specifically employing k-Nearest Neighbors (kNN) configurations, demonstrated a relative median decrease in prediction inconsistencies of up to 33% when compared against baseline models, indicating improved fairness without substantial accuracy loss.

Analysis of the COMPAS dataset reveals a trade-off between fairness metrics and prediction accuracy.
Analysis of the COMPAS dataset reveals a trade-off between fairness metrics and prediction accuracy.

Beyond the Algorithm: Societal Impact and Future Directions

Fair Sheaf Diffusion presents a notably adaptable methodology with implications extending far beyond theoretical computer science. Its core strength lies in its capacity to address fairness concerns across diverse machine learning applications, particularly those impacting critical societal domains like loan applications, criminal justice risk assessment, and healthcare resource allocation. Unlike traditional fairness-aware algorithms often tailored to specific model architectures, this framework operates at a higher level of abstraction, allowing it to be integrated with various existing models and data structures. This flexibility enables practitioners to proactively mitigate bias without requiring extensive model retraining or architectural overhauls. The method’s potential lies not just in identifying and correcting unfair outcomes, but in building more equitable systems from the ground up, fostering trust and accountability in increasingly data-driven decision-making processes.

Fair Sheaf Diffusion’s strength lies in its ability to leverage the underlying structure of data, represented as a network topology. This approach moves beyond treating data points in isolation, allowing the incorporation of crucial domain knowledge and contextual information directly into the fairness mechanism. By understanding relationships – such as social connections, geographical proximity, or shared attributes – the method can refine its assessments and mitigate biases that might otherwise go unnoticed. For instance, in loan applications, network information could reveal systemic disadvantages faced by specific communities, prompting adjustments to ensure equitable outcomes. This topological awareness isn’t merely a technical detail; it’s a fundamental shift towards a more nuanced and context-sensitive definition of fairness in machine learning, paving the way for more responsible and impactful applications.

Ongoing research aims to broaden the applicability of Fair Sheaf Diffusion beyond current data limitations, with efforts directed toward accommodating more intricate data types like graphs, time series, and multi-modal inputs. This expansion is coupled with an investigation into sheaf neural networks – a novel approach to machine learning that leverages the mathematical framework of sheaf theory to create more robust and context-aware data representations. By combining the strengths of sheaf theory with the learning capabilities of neural networks, researchers hope to achieve improved performance in fairness-sensitive applications, enabling the development of algorithms that are not only accurate but also demonstrably equitable across diverse populations and complex data landscapes. This integration promises a significant advancement in representation learning, allowing models to better capture the underlying structure and relationships within data while mitigating potential biases.

A grid search on the German dataset reveals a Pareto frontier demonstrating the trade-off between fairness metrics-specifically, independence and consistency-and overall accuracy.
A grid search on the German dataset reveals a Pareto frontier demonstrating the trade-off between fairness metrics-specifically, independence and consistency-and overall accuracy.

The pursuit of fairness in algorithmic models, as outlined in this work, isn’t a purely technical exercise. It reveals a fundamental human tendency: the desire for narratives that confirm pre-existing beliefs, even within seemingly objective systems. The framework for Fair Sheaf Diffusion (FSD) attempts to address bias not simply as a mathematical error, but as a consequence of how information – and thus, meaning – flows through networks. As John Dewey observed, “Education is not preparation for life; education is life itself.” Similarly, bias mitigation isn’t a post-hoc correction, but integral to the very construction of these models, a constant negotiation between structure and the inherent, messy reality of human perception. The study’s emphasis on network topology acknowledges that models aren’t isolated entities; they’re extensions of the social landscapes they attempt to represent.

What Lies Ahead?

The promise of Fair Sheaf Diffusion – and indeed, all algorithmic fairness interventions – rests on a quiet assumption: that bias is a technical problem with a technical solution. This framework, by focusing on network topology and cellular sheaves, offers a more nuanced encoding of fairness than simple demographic parity. However, it skirts the core issue: these networks didn’t emerge from objective reality; they are artifacts of human interaction, and therefore, inherently reflect existing power structures and prejudices. The mathematics may be elegant, but the data will always tell a story someone wishes to believe.

Future work will inevitably focus on refining the diffusion process, exploring different sheaf constructions, and scaling the approach to larger, more complex datasets. A more honest investigation, however, would acknowledge the futility of chasing ‘unbiased’ algorithms. The real challenge isn’t eliminating bias-it’s making it transparent. Understanding whose fears and hopes are embedded in the network, and how those are amplified by the algorithm, is a far more valuable pursuit than seeking a mythical neutrality.

One can anticipate a proliferation of fairness metrics, each tailored to a specific network structure and definition of ‘equity.’ This is predictable. Humans excel at creating elaborate justifications for pre-existing beliefs. The question isn’t whether these interventions will work, but whether they will merely obscure the underlying mechanisms of inequality, offering the illusion of progress while the fundamental narratives remain unchanged.

Original article: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2601.08784.pdf

Contact the author: https://www.linkedin.com/in/avetisyan/

See also:

2026-01-15 04:56