Proportional Fairness in Non-Centroid Clustering
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
We revisit the recently developed framework of proportionally fair clustering, where the goal is to provide group fairness guarantees that become stronger for groups of data points (agents) that are large and cohesive. Prior work applies this framework to centroid clustering, where the loss of an agent is its distance to the centroid assigned to its cluster. We expand the framework to non-centroid clustering, where the loss of an agent is a function of the other agents in its cluster, by adapting two proportional fairness criteria -- the core and its relaxation, fully justified representation (FJR) -- to this setting. We show that the core can be approximated only under structured loss functions, and even then, the best approximation we are able to establish, using an adaptation of the GreedyCapture algorithm developed for centroid clustering [Chen et al., 2019; Micha and Shah, 2020], is unappealing for a natural loss function. In contrast, we design a new (inefficient) algorithm, GreedyCohesiveClustering, which achieves the relaxation FJR exactly under arbitrary loss functions, and show that the efficient GreedyCapture algorithm achieves a constant approximation of FJR. We also design an efficient auditing algorithm, which estimates the FJR approximation of any given clustering solution up to a constant factor. Our experiments on real data suggest that traditional clustering algorithms are highly unfair, whereas GreedyCapture is considerably fairer and incurs only a modest loss in common clustering objectives.
Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 9 of its 20 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Oct 2024.
Builds on
9 of 20 references.
References · 9
- 2019Clustered Federated Learning: Model-Agnostic Distributed Multi-Task Optimization under Privacy Constraintscited by 499
- 2019Proportionally Fair Clusteringcited by 69
- 2020Proportional Participatory Budgeting with Additive Utilitiescited by 37
- 2022Fairness in Federated Learning via Core-Stabilitycited by 22
- 2023Proportional Fairness in Clustering: A Social Choice Perspectivecited by 12
- 2017Fractional Hedonic Gamescited by 10
- 2022Individual Preference Stability for Clusteringcited by 8
- 2023Proportionally Representative Clusteringcited by 8
- 2017Social Clustering in Epidemic Spread on Coevolving Networkscited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 3; 2026: 3.
6 papers.
- 2025Metritocracy: Representative Metrics for Lite Benchmarkscited by 2
- 2026Delayed Assignments in Online Non-Centroid Clustering with Stochastic Arrivalscited by 2
- 2025The Core in Max-Loss Non-Centroid Clustering Can Be Emptycited by 1
- 2026Fair Transit Stop Placement: A Clustering Perspective and Beyondcited by 1
- 2025Online Multi-Class Selection with Group Fairness Guaranteecited by 0
- 2026Optimally Selecting Representative Agents from a Metric Spacecited by 0
- 2026Optimally Selecting Representative Agents from a Metric Space29 Aug 2026
- 2026Fair Transit Stop Placement: A Clustering Perspective and Beyond6 Feb 2026
- 2026Delayed Assignments in Online Non-Centroid Clustering with Stochastic Arrivals22 Jan 2026
- 2025The Core in Max-Loss Non-Centroid Clustering Can Be Empty24 Nov 2025
- 2025Online Multi-Class Selection with Group Fairness Guarantee23 Oct 2025
- 2025Metritocracy: Representative Metrics for Lite Benchmarks11 Jun 2025