Group Meritocratic Fairness in Linear Contextual Bandits
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
We study the linear contextual bandit problem where an agent has to select one candidate from a pool and each candidate belongs to a sensitive group. In this setting, candidates' rewards may not be directly comparable between groups, for example when the agent is an employer hiring candidates from different ethnic groups and some groups have a lower reward due to discriminatory bias and/or social injustice. We propose a notion of fairness that states that the agent's policy is fair when it selects a candidate with highest relative rank, which measures how good the reward is when compared to candidates from the same group. This is a very strong notion of fairness, since the relative rank is not directly observed by the agent and depends on the underlying reward model and on the distribution of rewards. Thus we study the problem of learning a policy which approximates a fair policy under the condition that the contexts are independent between groups and the distribution of rewards of each group is absolutely continuous. In particular, we design a greedy policy which at each round constructs a ridge regression estimate from the observed context-reward pairs, and then computes an estimate of the relative rank of each candidate using the empirical cumulative distribution function. We prove that, despite its simplicity and the lack of an initial exploration phase, the greedy policy achieves, up to log factors and with high probability, a fair pseudo-regret of order √dT after T rounds, where d is the dimension of the context vectors. The policy also satisfies demographic parity at each round when averaged over all possible information available before the selection. Finally, we use simulated settings and experiments on the US census data to show that our policy achieves sub-linear fair pseudo-regret also in practice.
Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Jun 2022.
Builds on
20 of 42 references.
References · 20
- 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,007
- 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,917
- 2017Counterfactual Fairnesscited by 804
- 2021Retiring Adult: New Datasets for Fair Machine Learningcited by 449
- 2016Fairness Beyond Disparate Treatment & Disparate Impact: Learning Classification without Disparate Mistreatmentcited by 369
- 2018Empirical Risk Minimization under Fairness Constraintscited by 226
- 2017Avoiding Discrimination through Causal Reasoningcited by 194
- 2018Fair Clustering Through Fairletscited by 176
- 2016Fairness in Learning: Classic and Contextual Banditscited by 168
- 2017Beyond Parity: Fairness Objectives for Collaborative Filteringcited by 93
- 2019Achieving Fairness in the Stochastic Multi-armed Bandit Problemcited by 78
- 2019Combinatorial Sleeping Bandits with Fairness Constraintscited by 68
8 more
- 2015On the relation between accuracy and fairness in binary classificationcited by 48
- 2017Calibrated Fairness in Banditscited by 43
- 2021Fairness of Exposure in Stochastic Banditscited by 43
- 2019Fair Contextual Multi-Armed Bandits: Theory and Experimentscited by 42
- 2016A statistical framework for fair predictive algorithmscited by 38
- 2019Equal Opportunity in Online Classification with Partial Feedbackcited by 35
- 2020Fairness in Learning-Based Sequential Decision Algorithms: A Surveycited by 35
- 2018On preserving non-discrimination when combining expert advicecited by 12
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 5; 2025: 3.
9 papers.
- 2023Directional Optimism for Safe Linear Banditscited by 8
- 2024Honor Among Bandits: No-Regret Learning for Online Fair Divisioncited by 7
- 2024Long-Term Fairness Inquiries and Pursuits in Machine Learning: A Survey of Notions, Methods, and Challengescited by 4
- 2024Keep Everyone Happy: Online Fair Division of Numerous Items with Few Copiescited by 4
- 2024Fair Best Arm Identification with Fixed Confidencecited by 3
- 2025Improved Regret Bounds for Online Fair Division with Bandit Learningcited by 3
- 2024Simultaneously Achieving Group Exposure Fairness and Within-Group Meritocracy in Stochastic Banditscited by 1
- 2025A Critical Review of Predominant Bias in Neural Networkscited by 0
- 2025Collaborative Min-Max Regret in Grouped Multi-Armed Banditscited by 0
- 2025Collaborative Min-Max Regret in Grouped Multi-Armed Bandits12 Jun 2025
- 2025A Critical Review of Predominant Bias in Neural Networks16 Feb 2025
- 2025Improved Regret Bounds for Online Fair Division with Bandit Learning13 Jan 2025
- 2024Fair Best Arm Identification with Fixed Confidence30 Aug 2024
- 2024Keep Everyone Happy: Online Fair Division of Numerous Items with Few Copies23 Aug 2024
- 2024Honor Among Bandits: No-Regret Learning for Online Fair Division1 Jul 2024
- 2024Long-Term Fairness Inquiries and Pursuits in Machine Learning: A Survey of Notions, Methods, and Challenges10 Jun 2024
- 2024Simultaneously Achieving Group Exposure Fairness and Within-Group Meritocracy in Stochastic Bandits8 Feb 2024
- 2023Directional Optimism for Safe Linear Bandits29 Aug 2023
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025Group-Sensitive Offline Contextual Bandits
- 2024Fairness in Reinforcement Learning with Bisimulation Metrics
- 2026Multi-User Dueling Bandits: A Fair Approach using Nash Social Welfare
- 2025Fairness-Aware Reinforcement Learning (FAReL): A Framework for Transparent and Balanced Sequential Decision-Making
- 2025Fairness Aware Reinforcement Learning via Proximal Policy Optimization
- 2025Intersectional Fairness in Reinforcement Learning with Large State and Constraint Spaces
- 2026Learning to Contest: Decentralized Robust Fairness in Cooperative MARL via Cross-Attention ↗
- 2025A Causal Lens for Learning Long-term Fair Policies