mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Exposing the Illusion of Fairness: Auditing Vulnerabilities to Distributional Manipulation Attacks

arXiv 2507.20708 ↗First posted 28 Jul 2025cs.LG math.OC stat.APcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The rapid deployment of AI systems in high-stakes domains, including those classified as high-risk under the The EU AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689), has intensified the need for reliable compliance auditing. For binary classifiers, regulatory risk assessment often relies on global fairness metrics such as the Disparate Impact ratio, widely used to evaluate potential discrimination. In typical auditing settings, the auditee provides a subset of its dataset to an auditor, while a supervisory authority may verify whether this subset is representative of the full underlying distribution. In this work, we investigate to what extent a malicious auditee can construct a fairness-compliant yet representative-looking sample from a non-compliant original distribution, thereby creating an illusion of fairness. We formalize this problem as a constrained distributional projection task and introduce mathematically grounded manipulation strategies based on entropic and optimal transport projections. These constructions characterize the minimal distributional shift required to satisfy fairness constraints. To counter such attacks, we formalize representativeness through distributional distance based statistical tests and systematically evaluate their ability to detect manipulated samples. Our analysis highlights the conditions under which fairness manipulation can remain statistically undetected and provides practical guidelines for strengthening supervisory verification. We validate our theoretical findings through experiments on standard tabular datasets for bias detection. Code is publicly available at https://github.com/ValentinLafargue/Inspection.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 29 of its 60 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Jul 2025.

Builds on

29 of 60 references.

References · 29

  1. 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 51,809
  2. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
  3. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
  4. 2015Rethinking the Inception Architecture for Computer Visioncited by 5,451
  5. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
  6. 2014Deep Learning Face Attributes in the Wildcited by 3,679
  7. 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,000
  8. 2014Certifying and removing disparate impactcited by 715
  9. 2021Retiring Adult: New Datasets for Fair Machine Learningcited by 443
  10. 2019Fooling LIME and SHAP: Adversarial Attacks on Post hoc Explanation Methodscited by 440
  11. 2020Closing the AI Accountability Gap: Defining an End-to-End Framework for Internal Algorithmic Auditingcited by 380
  12. 2020Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 194
17 more
  1. 2024The Road Less Scheduledcited by 158
  2. 2019Wasserstein Fair Classificationcited by 131
  3. 2020Fair Regression with Wasserstein Barycenterscited by 99
  4. 2019Fairwashing: the risk of rationalizationcited by 81
  5. 2022Turning the Tables: Biased, Imbalanced, Dynamic Tabular Datasets for ML Evaluationcited by 39
  6. 2020A survey of bias in Machine Learning through the prism of Statistical Parity for the Adult Data Setcited by 35
  7. 2022Active Fairness Auditingcited by 27
  8. 2023Statistical Inference for Fairness Auditingcited by 19
  9. 2024Auditing Work: Exploring the New York City algorithmic bias audit regimecited by 18
  10. 2024From Transparency to Accountability and Back: A Discussion of Access and Evidence in AI Auditingcited by 15
  11. 2019Faking Fairness via Stealthily Biased Samplingcited by 14
  12. 2022Algorithmic audits of algorithms, and the lawcited by 9
  13. 2024Null Compliance: NYC Local Law 144 and the Challenges of Algorithm Accountabilitycited by 9
  14. 2025Robust ML Auditing using Prior Knowledgecited by 6
  15. 2018Explaining Machine Learning Models using Entropic Variable Projectioncited by 5
  16. 2022Black-Box Audits for Group Distribution Shiftscited by 5
  17. 2023Leveraging Imperfect Sources to Detect Fairwashing in Black-Box Auditingcited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.