PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

Bridging the Fairness Divide: Achieving Group and Individual Fairness in Graph Neural Networks

Duna Zhan, Dongliang Guo, Pengsheng Ji, Sheng Li

graph learningGraph Neural NetworksFairness in Graph LearningIndividual FairnessGroup Fairness
29.80100
Fused
band ≈ ±14 pct pts (from σ = 0.27)
29.20100
Mimo
band ≈ ±19 pct pts (from σ = 0.37)
25.40100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±20 pct pts (from σ = 0.40)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

Abstract

Graph neural networks (GNNs) have emerged as a powerful tool for analyzing and learning from complex data structured as graphs, demonstrating remarkable effectiveness in various applications, such as social network analysis, recommendation systems, and drug discovery. However, despite their impressive performance, the fairness problem has increasingly gained attention as a crucial aspect to consider. Existing research on fairness in graph learning primarily emphasizes either group fairness or individual fairness; however, to the best of our knowledge, none of these studies comprehensively address both individual and group fairness simultaneously. In this paper, we propose a new concept of individual fairness within groups and a novel framework named Fairness for Group and Individual (FairGI), which considers both group fairness and individual fairness within groups in the context of graph learning. FairGI employs the similarity matrix of individuals to achieve individual fairness within groups, while leveraging adversarial learning to address group fairness in terms of both Equal Opportunity and Statistical Parity. The experimental results demonstrate that our approach not only outperforms other state-of-the-art models in terms of group fairness and individual fairness within groups, but also exhibits excellent performance in population-level individual fairness, while maintaining comparable prediction accuracy.

Author context

Most prolific author: 11 submissions (credibility 0.64).

Delta if applied: -0.1 percentile

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 36)