Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 110 references

Fairness in Federated Learning: Fairness for Whom?

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that fairness research in federated learning targets the wrong objectives: system-level metrics like accuracy parity or contribution-based rewards, while overlooking who is actually harmed across the lifecycle.

desk verdict A genuinely useful critical review of fairness in FL, with a solid qualitative framework but an unreleased and slightly inconsistent annotation behind its quantitative claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21584 v1 pith:5DKNOQG3 submitted 2025-05-27 cs.LG cs.AIcs.CY

Afaf Taik , Khaoula Chehbouni , Golnoosh Farnadi This is my paper
classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.CY
keywords federatedlearningfairnessharm-centeredframeworkFLlifecyclestakeholdersgroupcollaborativeparticipation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the fairness research community in federated learning (FL) is optimizing the wrong objectives: instead of tracking who gets hurt when a model is deployed, most work optimizes narrow system-level metrics such as accuracy parity across clients or rewards proportional to contribution. The authors support this by manually annotating 121 papers on fairness in FL, mapping their fairness definitions, intervention targets, motivating use cases, and evaluation datasets onto the stages of the FL lifecycle. Their analysis yields five recurring pitfalls, including fairness framed solely through the server–client architecture, a mismatch between simulated evaluation and motivating contexts, and a conflation of protecting the system with protecting users. They then propose a harm-centered framework that links each lifecycle stage to the biases it can introduce and the concrete harms that can result, from quality-of-service and allocative harms to privacy and reputational harms. If the analysis is correct, most current FL fairness work is misaligned with real-world harms, and future research needs to be context-aware, lifecycle-level, and multi-stakeholder.

What carries the argument

The central object is the harm-centered framework, which maps the FL lifecycle—problem formulation, model initialization, client selection, local training, model aggregation, evaluation, deployment and incentives, plus privacy and robustness mechanisms—against sources of bias (historical, representation, measurement, learning, participation, aggregation, collaboration, evaluation) and categories of harm (quality-of-service, allocative, representational, privacy, reputational). The framework is anchored by the distinction between heterogeneity and scarcity as structural conditions of FL, and it uses the lifecycle as an analytical lens for locating where harms arise and which stakeholders are exposed. The argument is carried by the systematic annotation of 121 papers, manually categorized by fairness definition, motivating use case, intervention target, and evaluation dataset, which supplies the prevalence claims behind the five pitfalls.

What would settle it

Independently re-annotate the same or a freshly sampled corpus with a prespecified codebook and recount the papers that evaluate on domain-specific or real-world federated data; if that share is substantially higher than the paper's 'fewer than 10%' figure, or if a substantial minority of papers already adopt lifecycle-level, multi-stakeholder evaluation, the five-pitfall diagnosis is weakened. A complementary check would survey deployed FL systems to see whether stakeholders' reported harms actually align with the fairness definitions used in the research.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that fairness in federated learning is a sociotechnical problem, but the literature mostly treats it as a narrow optimization problem defined over the server–client abstraction. The systematic annotation of 121 papers reveals five recurring pitfalls: fairness framed solely through the lens of server–client architecture; a mismatch between simulations and motivating use cases and contexts; definitions that conflate protecting the system with protecting its users; interventions that target isolated stages of the lifecycle while neglecting upstream and downstream effects; and a lack of multi-stakeholder alignment when multiple fairness definitions are relevant at once. To correct this, the paper proposes a harm-centered framework that walks through each stage of the FL lifecycle and identifies the biases, structural challenges, and harms that can emerge, arguing that fairness in FL is an emergent property of the whole system rather than a single metric or stage. The paper concludes that fairness cannot be defined externally to those it affects and that participatory and context-aware approaches are needed.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the manual annotation of 121 papers is accurate and representative enough to support the paper's quantitative prevalence claims, such as that fewer than 10% of papers evaluated their fairness methods on domain-specific data; the paper itself concedes that the annotation process involves interpretation and may introduce subjectivity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fairness metrics in FL should be tied to specific stakeholder vulnerabilities and downstream harms rather than to aggregate model statistics.
  • Interventions localized to a single lifecycle stage, such as aggregation or client selection, cannot fix harms seeded in earlier stages like problem formulation or model initialization.
  • Evaluating fairness methods on centralized benchmark datasets split into synthetic clients can produce misleading conclusions about real-world fairness.
  • Multiple fairness definitions—performance, group, and collaborative—are simultaneously relevant in many FL deployments, and their interactions need to be studied jointly instead of in isolation.
  • Privacy and robustness mechanisms are not neutral: they can introduce new fairness harms, such as disproportionate privacy degradation for minority clients or the misclassification of honest low-resource clients as adversaries.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The framework implies a concrete reporting protocol for future FL fairness papers: state which stakeholders are at risk, at which lifecycle stage harms arise, and how the chosen metrics track those harms; such a protocol could be adopted as a community checklist.
  • Because the paper shows that synthetic-client evaluations dominate, building benchmark suites from real federated deployments (for example, medical or mobile-keyboard data) would give fairness methods a sharper testbed.
  • The reframing of collaborative fairness suggests that incentive mechanisms should be audited for their effect on the populations served by the clients, not only on the clients themselves.
  • The paper's lifecycle lens also applies to vertical FL and to personalized or clustered FL, which the paper notes it leaves out, so extending the harm mapping to those variants is a direct testable next step.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper is a critical, harm-centered review of the fairness-in-federated-learning (FL) literature. The authors argue that most existing fairness work in FL optimizes narrow system-level metrics—performance parity, contribution-based rewards, participation quotas—while abstracting away from the sociotechnical contexts, stakeholder vulnerabilities, and downstream harms that fairness is meant to address. To support this argument, the paper reports a systematic annotation of 121 papers, categorizing them by fairness definition, motivating use cases, lifecycle intervention points, and evaluation datasets. From this annotation, the authors identify five recurring pitfalls: (1) fairness framed solely through the server–client architecture; (2) a mismatch between simulated evaluation and motivating use cases; (3) conflation of system protection with user protection, especially in collaborative fairness; (4) interventions that target isolated lifecycle stages; and (5) a lack of multi-stakeholder alignment among multiple fairness definitions.

Significance. If the qualitative argument is accepted, the paper is a valuable corrective to a literature that often treats fairness as a purely technical optimization problem. The harm-centered lifecycle framework and the call for multi-stakeholder, context-aware evaluation are useful conceptual contributions, and the paper usefully emphasizes underexamined issues such as false-positive robustness detection, privacy–fairness tradeoffs, and the conflation of collaborative fairness with adversarial robustness. However, the quantitative prevalence claims—e.g., 'fewer than 10% of papers evaluated their fairness methods on domain-specific data' and the distribution of fairness paradigms in Figure 1—are load-bearing for the claim that these pitfalls are 'recurring' across the field. Those numbers rest on a manual annotation that is not released, lacks a coding rubric, screening counts, and inter-annotator agreement measures, and is internally inconsistent in at least one place. The normative framework and the qualitative critique could survive a correction of these empirical claims, but the paper as written does not yet make its prevalence narrative checkable.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.3 / Figure 1] The text states that collaborative fairness 'represents almost a third of the annotated papers,' but Figure 1 reports 21.6% and Section 4.2 says there are 26 collaborative-fairness papers, which is 21.5% of 121. 'Almost a third' (33%) is inconsistent with the paper's own figure and with the stated denominator. Because this number is used to support the claim that system-protection-oriented fairness is a dominant pattern, the discrepancy must be corrected and the underlying counts reconciled.
  2. [Section 4.2] The claim that 'fewer than 10% of papers evaluated their fairness methods on domain-specific data' is not reproducible as written. No denominator is given (10% of all 121 papers, or of some subset such as performance-fairness papers?), 'domain-specific data' is not formally defined, and the annotation dataset is not released. Given that this figure directly supports Pitfall 2, the authors should provide the annotation data or a detailed breakdown (with the rubric and screening counts) so that the claim can be independently verified.
  3. [Section 3 / Section 7] The Method section says papers were 'manually categorize[d]' and that 'some overlap exists across the definitions,' yet Figure 1 assigns each paper to exactly one paradigm. The paper does not explain how overlapping cases were resolved into single categories, nor does it report inter-annotator agreement. Since Section 7 concedes that 'the process inevitably involves interpretation, which may introduce subjectivity,' and since the five pitfalls are claimed to be 'revealed' by this annotation, the reliability of the labels is load-bearing and requires more rigorous support.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 4.1] There is a typo in the first sentence: 'fairness is FL' should read 'fairness in FL'.
  2. [Section 4.2] The phrase 'evaluate across realistic data from silos or clients' is grammatically incomplete and should be reworded for clarity.
  3. [Figure 2] The legend label 'Add. Mech.' is unclear; the caption should spell out 'additional mechanisms' and describe how multi-stage interventions were counted per paper.
  4. [References] The Kohavi and Becker reference misspells 'Machine' as 'Meachine,' and several entries inconsistently include both arXiv identifiers and venue information; a full reference clean-up is recommended.
  5. [Section 3] For reproducibility, the exact DBLP search string, search date, and the number of papers retrieved at each screening stage should be reported; the current description only names keywords and exclusion criteria.
  6. [Section 5.1] The sentence 'This leads to the ideal to be purely random/ round robin selection' is awkward and should be rephrased.
  7. [Section 6] The capitalization in 'We note some key takeaways' is inconsistent with the surrounding sentence style; it should be lowercase.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the five-pitfall claim rests on manual annotation and cited literature, not on fitted parameters or self-citation chains; the load-bearing weakness is annotation reliability, which is a correctness risk rather than circularity.

full rationale

This paper is a critical literature review and position paper; it contains no mathematical derivation chain in which a prediction is shown to equal its input by construction. The central claim—that fairness-in-FL research exhibits five recurring pitfalls—is an inductive summary of the authors' manual annotation of 121 papers. The prevalence statements ('fewer than 10% of papers evaluated their fairness methods on domain-specific data'; 'collaborative fairness represents almost a third of the annotated papers') are descriptive statistics of that annotation, not predictions or fitted outputs, so they cannot be circular in the fitted-input sense. No equation is defined in terms of a target result, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from prior work to force a conclusion. The self-citations (Chehbouni et al. 2025 in Sections 4.1 and 6; Molamohammadi et al. 2023 in Section 2.2; Pentyala et al. 2022 in Section 5.1) are used for background context—multi-stakeholder framing, heterogeneity dimensions, and privacy–fairness tradeoffs—and the five pitfalls would stand or fall identically if those citations were replaced by external references; they are not load-bearing. The genuine weakness flagged by the paper itself (Section 7: 'the process inevitably involves interpretation, which may introduce subjectivity') and the internal inconsistency between Section 4.3's 'almost a third' and Figure 1's 21.6% (matching 26/121 in Section 4.2) are evidence-quality and reproducibility concerns about the unreleased annotation rubric, not evidence that a result reduces to its own inputs. The proposed harm-centered framework is a synthesis of existing taxonomies (Suresh and Guttag 2021; Shelby et al. 2023) mapped onto the FL lifecycle; this is organizing prior results rather than renaming a known result as a new derivation. Under the rubric, one or more minor self-citations that are not load-bearing warrants a score of 2, and no pattern from the enumerated circularity kinds is exhibited with the required quote-and-reduction evidence.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a manual, interpretative annotation of a literature corpus. No equations or fitted parameters are involved. The main load-bearing assumptions are the representativeness of the corpus, the adopted fairness taxonomy, the transfer of centralized-ML harm categories to FL, and the reliability of the manual coding.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The 121 annotated papers are representative of the FL fairness literature up to December 2024.
    Section 3 describes a DBLP keyword search and filtering rules, but provides no validation of representativeness; Section 7 concedes coverage may be constrained by the chosen search criteria.
  • domain assumption The four-paradigm taxonomy (participation, performance, group, collaborative fairness) is a valid way to categorize the literature.
    Section 2.3 introduces the taxonomy and notes that many papers do not use this terminology and that categories overlap, so the taxonomy itself is an interpretive assumption on which all counts depend.
  • domain assumption Harms classified for centralized ML (QoS, allocative, representational, privacy, reputational) transfer to federated learning.
    Section 5.2 maps these harm types onto FL failure modes; the mapping is asserted on the basis of examples rather than derived or measured.
  • ad hoc to paper Manual annotation yields reliable enough category labels to support the paper's quantitative prevalence claims.
    The Method section states 'We manually categorize the papers' without inter-annotator agreement or a released codebook; Section 7 admits subjectivity, yet the paper reports specific percentages such as 'fewer than 10%'.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fairness in Federated Learning: Fairness for Whom?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5DKNOQG3

@misc{pith2026250521584,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fairness in Federated Learning: Fairness for Whom?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5DKNOQG3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21584}
}
read the original abstract

Fairness in federated learning has emerged as a rapidly growing area of research, with numerous works proposing formal definitions and algorithmic interventions. Yet, despite this technical progress, fairness in FL is often defined and evaluated in ways that abstract away from the sociotechnical contexts in which these systems are deployed. In this paper, we argue that existing approaches tend to optimize narrow system level metrics, such as performance parity or contribution-based rewards, while overlooking how harms arise throughout the FL lifecycle and how they impact diverse stakeholders. We support this claim through a critical analysis of the literature, based on a systematic annotation of papers for their fairness definitions, design decisions, evaluation practices, and motivating use cases. Our analysis reveals five recurring pitfalls: 1) fairness framed solely through the lens of server client architecture, 2) a mismatch between simulations and motivating use-cases and contexts, 3) definitions that conflate protecting the system with protecting its users, 4) interventions that target isolated stages of the lifecycle while neglecting upstream and downstream effects, 5) and a lack of multi-stakeholder alignment where multiple fairness definitions can be relevant at once. Building on these insights, we propose a harm centered framework that links fairness definitions to concrete risks and stakeholder vulnerabilities. We conclude with recommendations for more holistic, context-aware, and accountable fairness research in FL.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.21584 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Fairness paradigms covered in our analysis. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Lifecycle steps addressed in fairness papers, by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of our harm-centered framework for fairness in FL. At each step of the FL lifecycle, we identify biases [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

110 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.a...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    Abad, M. S. H.; Ozfatura, E.; Gunduz, D.; and Ercetin, O. 2020. Hierarchical federated learning across heterogeneous cellular networks. In ICASSP 2020-2020 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 8866--8870. IEEE

    2020

  4. [4]

    Abay, A.; Zhou, Y.; Baracaldo, N.; Rajamoni, S.; Chuba, E.; and Ludwig, H. 2020. Mitigating Bias in Federated Learning . CoRR, abs/2012.02447. ArXiv: 2012.02447

    arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Abercrombie, G.; Benbouzid, D.; Giudici, P.; Golpayegani, D.; Hernandez, J.; Noro, P.; Pandit, H.; Paraschou, E.; Pownall, C.; Prajapati, J.; et al. 2024. A collaborative, Human-Centred taxonomy of AI, algorithmic, and automation harms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.01294

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Adamek, J.; and Darup, M. S. 2024. Privacy-preserving gradient-based fair federated learning. In 2024 10th International Conference on Control , Decision and Information Technologies ( CoDIT ) , 2132--2138. ISSN: 2576-3555

    2024

  7. [7]

    Albaseer, A.; Abdi, N.; Abdallah, M.; Qaraqe, M.; and Al-Kuwari, S. 2024. FedPot : A Quality - Aware Collaborative and Incentivized Honeypot - Based Detector for Smart Grid Networks . IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management, 21(4): 4844--4860. Conference Name: IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management

    2024

  8. [8]

    T.; Klous, S.; and Gommans, L

    Amiri, S.; Belloum, A.; Nalisnick, E. T.; Klous, S.; and Gommans, L. 2022. On the impact of non- IID data on the performance and fairness of differentially private federated learning. In 52nd Annual IEEE / IFIP International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks , DSN Workshops 2022, Baltimore , MD , USA , June 27-30, 2022 , 52--58. IEEE

    2022

Show all 110 references
  1. [9]

    Angwin, J.; Larson, J.; Mattu, S.; and Kirchner, L. 2016. Machine bias: There’s software used across the country to predict future criminals. And it’s biased against blacks. ProPublica, 23: 77--91

    2016

  2. [10]

    Annapareddy, N.; Preston, J.; and Fox, J. 2023. Fairness and Privacy in Federated Learning and Their Implications in Healthcare . CoRR, abs/2308.07805. ArXiv: 2308.07805

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    S.; Andr \'e da Costa, C.; K \"u derle, A.; Yari, I

    Antunes, R. S.; Andr \'e da Costa, C.; K \"u derle, A.; Yari, I. A.; and Eskofier, B. 2022. Federated learning for healthcare: Systematic review and architecture proposal. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST), 13(4): 1--23

    2022

  4. [12]

    N.; Dieng, A.; Haykel, I.; Rostamzadeh, N.; Pfohl, S.; Nagpal, C.; Nagawa, M.; Oppong, A.; Koyejo, S.; and Heller, K

    Asiedu, M. N.; Dieng, A.; Haykel, I.; Rostamzadeh, N.; Pfohl, S.; Nagpal, C.; Nagawa, M.; Oppong, A.; Koyejo, S.; and Heller, K. 2024. The Case for Globalizing Fairness : A Mixed Methods Study on Colonialism , AI , and Health in Africa . In Proceedings of the 4th ACM Conferenc...

    2024

  5. [13]

    Bagdasaryan, E.; Poursaeed, O.; and Shmatikov, V. 2019. Differential Privacy Has Disparate Impact on Model Accuracy . In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 32. Curran Associates, Inc

    2019

  6. [14]

    Balbierer, B.; Heinlein, L.; Zipperling, D.; and Kühl, N. 2024. A Multivocal Literature Review on Privacy and Fairness in Federated Learning . CoRR, abs/2408.08666. ArXiv: 2408.08666

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    C.; Gabriel, I.; and Mohamed, S

    Birhane, A.; Isaac, W.; Prabhakaran, V.; Diaz, M.; Elish, M. C.; Gabriel, I.; and Mohamed, S. 2022. Power to the people? Opportunities and challenges for participatory AI. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization, 1--8

    2022

  8. [16]

    Bonawitz, K. 2019. Towards federated learning at scale: Syste m design. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.01046

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    D.; Caporossi, G.; Taik, A.; Rabbany, R.; and Farnadi, G

    Chehbouni, K.; Cock, M. D.; Caporossi, G.; Taik, A.; Rabbany, R.; and Farnadi, G. 2025. Enhancing Privacy in the Early Detection of Sexual Predators Through Federated Learning and Differential Privacy. arXiv:2501.12537

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Chen, H.; Zhu, T.; Zhang, T.; Zhou, W.; and Yu, P. S. 2024. Privacy and Fairness in Federated Learning : On the Perspective of Tradeoff . ACM Comput. Surv., 56(2): 39:1--39:37

    2024

  11. [19]

    J.; Wang, J.; and Joshi, G

    Cho, Y. J.; Wang, J.; and Joshi, G. 2022. Towards understanding biased client selection in federated learning. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, 10351--10375. PMLR

    2022

  12. [20]

    Chu, W.; Xie, C.; Wang, B.; Li, L.; Yin, L.; Zhao, H.; and Li, B. 2022. FOCUS : Fairness via Agent - Awareness for Federated Learning on Heterogeneous Data . CoRR, abs/2207.10265. ArXiv: 2207.10265

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Chu, Y.-W.; Han, D.-J.; Hosseinalipour, S.; and Brinton, C. G. 2024 a . Rethinking the Starting Point : Enhancing Performance and Fairness of Federated Learning via Collaborative Pre - Training . CoRR, abs/2402.02225. ArXiv: 2402.02225

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    S.; and Brinton, C

    Chu, Y.-W.; Hosseinalipour, S.; Tenorio, E.; Cruz, L.; Douglas, K.; Lan, A. S.; and Brinton, C. G. 2024 b . Multi-layer personalized federated learning for mitigating biases in student predictive analytics. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing

    2024

  15. [23]

    Chuang, C.-Y.; Jampani, V.; Li, Y.; Torralba, A.; and Jegelka, S. 2023. Debiasing vision-language models via biased prompts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.00070

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Cong, Y.; Qiu, J.; Zhang, K.; Fang, Z.; Gao, C.; Su, S.; and Tian, Z. 2024. Ada- FFL : Adaptive computing fairness federated learning. CAAI Trans. Intell. Technol., 9(3): 573--584

    2024

  17. [25]

    Ding, F.; Hardt, M.; Miller, J.; and Schmidt, L. 2021. Retiring Adult : New Datasets for Fair Machine Learning . In Ranzato, M.; Beygelzimer, A.; Dauphin, Y.; Liang, P. S.; and Vaughan, J. W., eds., Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 34, 6478--6490. Cur...

    2021

  18. [26]

    Donahue, K.; and Kleinberg, J. M. 2021. Models of fairness in federated learning. CoRR, abs/2112.00818. ArXiv: 2112.00818

    2021 arXiv

  19. [27]

    B.; Megdiche, I.; Peninou, A.; and Teste, O

    El-Rifai, O.; Ali, M. B.; Megdiche, I.; Peninou, A.; and Teste, O. 2025. A Survey on Cluster-based Federated Learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.17512

    2025

  20. [28]

    H.; Yan, S.; He, C.; Ferrara, E.; and Avestimehr, S

    Ezzeldin, Y. H.; Yan, S.; He, C.; Ferrara, E.; and Avestimehr, S. 2021. FairFed : Enabling Group Fairness in Federated Learning . CoRR, abs/2110.00857. ArXiv: 2110.00857

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Fu, L.; Zhang, H.; Gao, G.; Zhang, M.; and Liu, X. 2023. Client Selection in Federated Learning: Principles, Challenges, and Opportunities. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 10(24): 21811--21819

    2023

  22. [30]

    O.; Rossi, R

    Gallegos, I. O.; Rossi, R. A.; Barrow, J.; Tanjim, M. M.; Kim, S.; Dernoncourt, F.; Yu, T.; Zhang, R.; and Ahmed, N. K. 2024. Bias and fairness in large language models: A survey. Computational Linguistics, 50(3): 1097--1179

    2024

  23. [31]

    E.; and Khan, A

    Gao, J.; Mavromatis, I.; Li, P.; Carnelli, P. E.; and Khan, A. 2024. Mitigating System Bias in Resource Constrained Asynchronous Federated Learning Systems . CoRR, abs/2401.13366. ArXiv: 2401.13366

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Goetz, J.; Malik, K.; Bui, D.; Moon, S.; Liu, H.; and Kumar, A. 2019. Active Federated Learning . ArXiv:1909.12641 [cs]

    2019 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Green, B. 2021. The contestation of tech ethics: FA sociotechnical approach to technology ethics in practice. Journal of Social Computing, 2(3): 209--225

    2021

  26. [34]

    R.; Granqvist, F.; Dalen, R

    Gálvez, B. R.; Granqvist, F.; Dalen, R. C. v.; and Seigel, M. 2021. Enforcing fairness in private federated learning via the modified method of differential multipliers. CoRR, abs/2109.08604. ArXiv: 2109.08604

    2021 arXiv

  27. [35]

    U.; Qureshi, R.; Shah, A.; Irfan, M.; Zafar, A.; Shaikh, M

    Hadi, M. U.; Qureshi, R.; Shah, A.; Irfan, M.; Zafar, A.; Shaikh, M. B.; Akhtar, N.; Wu, J.; Mirjalili, S.; et al. 2023. A survey on large language models: Applications, challenges, limitations, and practical usage. Authorea Preprints

    2023

  28. [36]

    Hard, A.; Rao, K.; Mathews, R.; Ramaswamy, S.; Beaufays, F.; Augenstein, S.; Eichner, H.; Kiddon, C.; and Ramage, D. 2018. Federated learning for mobile keyboard prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.03604

    2018 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Huang, T.; Lin, W.; Wu, W.; He, L.; Li, K.; and Zomaya, A. Y. 2021. An Efficiency -boosting Client Selection Scheme for Federated Learning with Fairness Guarantee . IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, 32(7): 1552--1564. ArXiv:2011.01783 [cs]

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

    S.; and Chen, L

    Javaherian, S.; Panta, S.; Williams, S.; Islam, M. S.; and Chen, L. 2024 a . FedFair 3: Unlocking Threefold Fairness in Federated Learning . CoRR, abs/2401.16350. ArXiv: 2401.16350

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    S.; and Chen, L

    Javaherian, S.; Panta, S.; Williams, S.; Islam, M. S.; and Chen, L. 2024 b . FedFair ( mbox3 ): Unlocking Threefold Fairness in Federated Learning . In IEEE International Conference on Communications , ICC 2024, Denver , CO , USA , June 9-13, 2024 , 3622--3627. IEEE

    2024

  32. [40]

    B.; Avent, B.; Bellet, A.; Bennis, M.; Bhagoji, A

    Kairouz, P.; McMahan, H. B.; Avent, B.; Bellet, A.; Bennis, M.; Bhagoji, A. N.; Bonawitz, K.; Charles, Z.; Cormode, G.; Cummings, R.; et al. 2021. Advances and open problems in federated learning. Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning , 14(1--2): 1--210

    2021

  33. [41]

    Kaur, I.; and Jadhav, A. J. 2023. A Comprehensive Study on Model Initialization Techniques Ensuring Efficient Federated Learning . ArXiv:2311.02100 [cs]

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Kleinberg, J.; Ludwig, J.; Mullainathan, S.; and Rambachan, A. 2018. Algorithmic fairness. In Aea papers and proceedings, volume 108, 22--27. American Economic Association 2014 Broadway, Suite 305, Nashville, TN 37203

    2018

  35. [43]

    Kohavi, R.; and Becker, B. 1996. Uci adult data set. UCI Meachine Learning Repository, 5

    1996

  36. [44]

    Kone c n \`y , J. 2016. Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.05492

    2016 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Lai, F.; Dai, Y.; Singapuram, S.; Liu, J.; Zhu, X.; Madhyastha, H.; and Chowdhury, M. 2022. Fedscale: Benchmarking model and system performance of federated learning at scale. In International conference on machine learning, 11814--11827. PMLR

    2022

  38. [46]

    Lee, M.; Kim, H.; and Joo, C. 2024. Geographical Node Clustering and Grouping to Guarantee Data IIDness in Federated Learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.15693

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Li, B.; Yao, Y.; Tan, J.; Gong, R.; Lu, J.; and Luo, Y. 2024 a . Rectify representation bias in vision-language models for long-tailed recognition. Neural Networks, 172: 106134

    2024

  40. [48]

    Li, T.; Sanjabi, M.; Beirami, A.; and Smith, V. 2020. Fair Resource Allocation in Federated Learning . ArXiv:1905.10497 [cs]

    2020 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Li, Y.; Zhang, J.; Zhao, Y.; Chen, B.; and Yu, S. 2024 b . Fairness- Aware Federated Learning Framework on Heterogeneous Data Distributions . In IEEE International Conference on Communications , ICC 2024, Denver , CO , USA , June 9-13, 2024 , 728--733. IEEE

    2024

  42. [50]

    Lim, W. Y. B.; Luong, N. C.; Hoang, D. T.; Jiao, Y.; Liang, Y.-C.; Yang, Q.; Niyato, D.; and Miao, C. 2020. Federated learning in mobile edge networks: A comprehensive survey. IEEE communications surveys & tutorials, 22(3): 2031--2063

    2020

  43. [51]

    Ling, X.; Fu, J.; Chen, Z.; Wang, K.; Li, H.; Cheng, T.; Xu, G.; and Li, Q. 2024. FedFDP : Federated Learning with Fairness and Differential Privacy . CoRR, abs/2402.16028. ArXiv: 2402.16028

    2024

  44. [52]

    Liu, L.; Kong, Y.; Li, G.; and Han, M. 2023. FairShare : An Incentive - Based Fairness - Aware Data Sharing Framework for Federated Learning . In Yang, H.; Liu, H.; Zou, J.; Yin, Z.; Liu, L.; Yang, G.; Ouyang, X.; and Wang, Z., eds., Intelligent Robotics and Applications - 16t...

    2023

  45. [53]

    Liu, Z.; Luo, P.; Wang, X.; and Tang, X. 2015. Deep learning face attributes in the wild. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, 3730--3738

    2015

  46. [54]

    Lones, M. A. 2021. How to avoid machine learning pitfalls: a guide for academic researchers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.02497

    2021 arXiv

  47. [55]

    K.; and Wan, S

    Lu, J.; Liu, H.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, J.; Goudos, S. K.; and Wan, S. 2022. Toward Fairness - Aware Time - Sensitive Asynchronous Federated Learning for Critical Energy Infrastructure . IEEE Trans. Ind. Informatics, 18(5): 3462--3472

    2022

  48. [56]

    Lu, Z.; Pan, H.; Dai, Y.; Si, X.; and Zhang, Y. 2024. Federated learning with non-iid data: A survey. IEEE Internet of Things Journal

    2024

  49. [57]

    Lyu, L.; Xu, X.; and Wang, Q. 2020. Collaborative Fairness in Federated Learning . ArXiv:2008.12161 [cs]

    2020 arXiv

  50. [58]

    U.; Jeslin, J

    Maheswari, G. U.; Jeslin, J. G.; Rajasuguna, M.; and S, A. 2024. Transforming Healthcare with Federated Learning -based Artficial Intelligence : Concepts , Classifications , and Challenges . In 2024 3rd International Conference on Sentiment Analysis and Deep Learning ( ICSADL ...

    2024

  51. [59]

    Makhija, D.; Han, X.; Ghosh, J.; and Kim, Y. 2024. Achieving Fairness Across Local and Global Models in Federated Learning . CoRR, abs/2406.17102. ArXiv: 2406.17102

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Mashhadi, A.; Tabaraei, A.; Zhan, Y.; and Parizi, R. M. 2022. An Auditing Framework for Analyzing Fairness of Spatial - Temporal Federated Learning Applications . In 2022 IEEE World AI IoT Congress ( AIIoT ), Seattle , WA , USA , June 6-9, 2022 , 699--707. IEEE

    2022

  53. [61]

    McMahan, B.; Moore, E.; Ramage, D.; Hampson, S.; and y Arcas, B. A. 2017. Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data. In Artificial intelligence and statistics, 1273--1282. PMLR

    2017

  54. [62]

    Meerza, S. I. A.; Liu, L.; Zhang, J.; and Liu, J. 2024. GLOCALFAIR : Jointly Improving Global and Local Group Fairness in Federated Learning . CoRR, abs/2401.03562. ArXiv: 2401.03562

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Michieli, U.; and Ozay, M. 2021. Are All Users Treated Fairly in Federated Learning Systems ? In 2021 IEEE / CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops ( CVPRW ) , 2318--2322. Nashville, TN, USA: IEEE. ISBN 978-1-6654-4899-4

    2021

  56. [64]

    Mitchell, S.; Potash, E.; Barocas, S.; D'Amour, A.; and Lum, K. 2021. Algorithmic fairness: Choices, assumptions, and definitions. Annual review of statistics and its application, 8(1): 141--163

    2021

  57. [65]

    Mohri, M.; Sivek, G.; and Suresh, A. T. 2019. Agnostic federated learning. In International conference on machine learning, 4615--4625. PMLR

    2019

  58. [66]

    Molamohammadi, M.; Ta\" k, A.; Le Roux, N.; and Farnadi, G. 2023. Unraveling the Interconnected Axes of Heterogeneity in Machine Learning for Democratic and Inclusive Advancements. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Opt...

    2023

  59. [67]

    Nishio, T.; and Yonetani, R. 2019. Client selection for federated learning with heterogeneous resources in mobile edge. In ICC 2019-2019 IEEE international conference on communications (ICC), 1--7. IEEE

    2019

  60. [68]

    Ogier du Terrail, J.; Ayed, S.-S.; Cyffers, E.; Grimberg, F.; He, C.; Loeb, R.; Mangold, P.; Marchand, T.; Marfoq, O.; Mushtaq, E.; et al. 2022. Flamby: Datasets and benchmarks for cross-silo federated learning in realistic healthcare settings. Advances in Neural Information P...

    2022

  61. [69]

    Papadaki, A.; Martínez, N.; Bertrán, M.; Sapiro, G.; and Rodrigues, M. R. D. 2022. Minimax Demographic Group Fairness in Federated Learning . In FAccT '22: 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness , Accountability , and Transparency , Seoul , Republic of Korea , June 21 - 24, 2022 , 14...

    2022

  62. [70]

    Passi, S.; and Barocas, S. 2019. Problem Formulation and Fairness . In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness , Accountability , and Transparency , 39--48. Atlanta GA USA: ACM. ISBN 978-1-4503-6125-5

    2019

  63. [71]

    Pentyala, S.; Neophytou, N.; Nascimento, A. C. A.; Cock, M. D.; and Farnadi, G. 2022. PrivFairFL : Privacy - Preserving Group Fairness in Federated Learning . CoRR, abs/2205.11584. ArXiv: 2205.11584

    2022 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Qi, P.; Chiaro, D.; Guzzo, A.; Ianni, M.; Fortino, G.; and Piccialli, F. 2024. Model aggregation techniques in federated learning: A comprehensive survey. Future Generation Computer Systems, 150: 272--293

    2024

  65. [73]

    Qin, C.; Zhu, H.; Xu, T.; Zhu, C.; Jiang, L.; Chen, E.; and Xiong, H. 2018. Enhancing person-job fit for talent recruitment: An ability-aware neural network approach. In The 41st international ACM SIGIR conference on research & development in information retrieval, 25--34

    2018

  66. [74]

    H.; Noor, F

    Rafi, T. H.; Noor, F. A.; Hussain, T.; and Chae, D.-K. 2024. Fairness and privacy preserving in federated learning: A survey. Inf. Fusion, 105: 102198

    2024

  67. [75]

    D.; Kumar, I

    Raji, I. D.; Kumar, I. E.; Horowitz, A.; and Selbst, A. 2022. The Fallacy of AI Functionality . In 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness , Accountability , and Transparency , 959--972. Seoul Republic of Korea: ACM. ISBN 978-1-4503-9352-2

    2022

  68. [76]

    Ren, P.; Qi, K.; Li, J.; Yan, T.; and Dai, Q. 2024. CosPer : An adaptive personalized approach for enhancing fairness and robustness of federated learning. Inf. Sci., 675: 120760

    2024

  69. [77]

    Roy, S.; Sharma, H.; and Salekin, A. 2024. Fairness Without Demographics in Human - Centered Federated Learning . CoRR, abs/2404.19725. ArXiv: 2404.19725

    2024

  70. [78]

    Salazar, T.; Araújo, H.; Cano, A.; and Abreu, P. H. 2024. A Survey on Group Fairness in Federated Learning : Challenges , Taxonomy of Solutions and Directions for Future Research . CoRR, abs/2410.03855. ArXiv: 2410.03855

    2024 arXiv

  71. [79]

    M.; Hoang, D

    Saputra, Y. M.; Hoang, D. T.; Nguyen, D. N.; Dutkiewicz, E.; Mueck, M. D.; and Srikanteswara, S. 2019. Energy demand prediction with federated learning for electric vehicle networks. In 2019 IEEE global communications conference (GLOBECOM), 1--6. IEEE

    2019

  72. [80]

    Sattler, F.; M \"u ller, K.-R.; and Samek, W. 2020. Clustered federated learning: Model-agnostic distributed multitask optimization under privacy constraints. IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems, 32(8): 3710--3722

    2020

  73. [81]

    A.; Huang, K.; DeFilippis, E.; Radanovic, G.; Parkes, D

    Saxena, N. A.; Huang, K.; DeFilippis, E.; Radanovic, G.; Parkes, D. C.; and Liu, Y. 2019. How do fairness definitions fare? Examining public attitudes towards algorithmic definitions of fairness. In Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, 99--106

    2019

  74. [82]

    D.; Boyd, D.; Friedler, S

    Selbst, A. D.; Boyd, D.; Friedler, S. A.; Venkatasubramanian, S.; and Vertesi, J. 2019. Fairness and abstraction in sociotechnical systems. In Proceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, 59--68

    2019

  75. [83]

    Selialia, K.; Chandio, Y.; and Anwar, F. M. 2022. Federated Learning Biases in Heterogeneous Edge - Devices : A Case - Study . In Gummeson, J.; Lee, S. I.; Gao, J.; and Xing, G., eds., Proceedings of the 20th ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems , SenSys 2022, B...

    2022

  76. [84]

    Selialia, K.; Chandio, Y.; and Anwar, F. M. 2023. Mitigating Group Bias in Federated Learning for Heterogeneous Devices . CoRR, abs/2309.07085. ArXiv: 2309.07085

    2023 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Shelby, R.; Rismani, S.; Henne, K.; Moon, A.; Rostamzadeh, N.; Nicholas, P.; Yilla-Akbari, N.; Gallegos, J.; Smart, A.; Garcia, E.; et al. 2023. Sociotechnical harms of algorithmic systems: Scoping a taxonomy for harm reduction. In Proceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference o...

    2023

  78. [86]

    Shi, Y.; Yu, H.; and Leung, C. 2024. Towards Fairness - Aware Federated Learning . IEEE Trans. Neural Networks Learn. Syst., 35(9): 11922--11938

    2024

  79. [87]

    Simson, J.; Fabris, A.; and Kern, C. 2024. Lazy data practices harm fairness research. In The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 642--659

    2024

  80. [88]

    Suresh, H.; and Guttag, J. 2021. A Framework for Understanding Sources of Harm throughout the Machine Learning Life Cycle . In Equity and Access in Algorithms , Mechanisms , and Optimization , 1--9. -- NY USA: ACM. ISBN 978-1-4503-8553-4

    2021

  81. [89]

    Tak, A.; and Cherkaoui, S. 2021. Federated Edge Learning: Design Issues and Challenges. IEEE Network, 35(2): 252--258

    2021

  82. [90]

    Z.; Yu, H.; Cui, L.; and Yang, Q

    Tan, A. Z.; Yu, H.; Cui, L.; and Yang, Q. 2022. Towards personalized federated learning. IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems, 34(12): 9587--9603

    2022

  83. [91]

    Thakkar, O.; Ramaswamy, S.; Mathews, R.; and Beaufays, F. 2020. Understanding unintended memorization in federated learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.07490

    2020 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Touat, O.; and Bouchenak, S. 2023. Towards Robust and Bias -free Federated Learning . In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Machine Learning and Systems , 49--55. Rome Italy: ACM. ISBN 979-8-4007-0084-2

    2023

  85. [93]

    T.; Roy, K.; and Yuan, X

    Ude, B.; Odeyomi, O. T.; Roy, K.; and Yuan, X. 2023. A Survey on Bias Mitigation in Federated Learning . In IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence , SSCI 2023, Mexico City , Mexico , December 5-8, 2023 , 1170--1175. IEEE

    2023

  86. [94]

    Vucinich, S.; and Zhu, Q. 2023. The Current State and Challenges of Fairness in Federated Learning . IEEE Access, 11: 80903--80914

    2023

  87. [95]

    Wang, C.; Huang, H.; Li, R.; Liu, J.; Cai, T.; and Zheng, Z. 2024 a . Libra: A Fairness - Guaranteed Framework for Semi - Asynchronous Federated Learning . In 44th IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems , ICDCS 2024, Jersey City , NJ , USA , July 23-26,...

    2024

  88. [96]

    Wang, L.; Zhu, T.; Zhou, W.; and Yu, P. S. 2024 b . Linkage on Security , Privacy and Fairness in Federated Learning : New Balances and New Perspectives . CoRR, abs/2406.10884. ArXiv: 2406.10884

    2024 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Wang, Y.; Tang, X.; Lu, Y.; and Liu, N. 2023. Research on the Fairness of Cold -start Recommender System Based on Federated Learning Framework . In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Internet of Things , Automation and Artificial Intelligence , IoTAAI 2023, Nan...

    2023

  90. [98]

    Xia, Y.; Ma, B.; Dou, Q.; and Xia, Y. 2024. Enhancing Federated Learning Performance Fairness via Collaboration Graph - Based Reinforcement Learning . In Linguraru, M. G.; Dou, Q.; Feragen, A.; Giannarou, S.; Glocker, B.; Lekadir, K.; and Schnabel, J. A., eds., Medical Image C...

    2024

  91. [99]

    Xie, R.; Li, C.; Zhou, X.; and Dong, Z. 2024. Accelerating Communication - Efficient Federated Multi - Task Learning With Personalization and Fairness . IEEE Trans. Parallel Distributed Syst., 35(11): 2239--2253

    2024

  92. [100]

    Xu, G.; Wu, Y.; Hu, J.; and Shi, Y. 2022. Achieving Fairness in Dermatological Disease Diagnosis through Automatic Weight Adjusting Federated Learning and Personalization . CoRR, abs/2208.11187. ArXiv: 2208.11187

    2022 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Xu, H.; Nanda, P.; and Liang, J. 2024. Reciprocal Federated Learning Framework : Balancing incentives for model and data owners. Future Generation Computer Systems, 161: 146--161

    2024

  94. [102]

    Yan, Y.; Zhu, L.; Li, Y.; Xu, X.; Goh, R. S. M.; Liu, Y.; Khan, S. H.; and Feng, C.-M. 2024. A New Perspective to Boost Performance Fairness For Medical Federated Learning . In Linguraru, M. G.; Dou, Q.; Feragen, A.; Giannarou, S.; Glocker, B.; Lekadir, K.; and Schnabel, J. A....

    2024

  95. [103]

    Yang, K.; Qinami, K.; Fei-Fei, L.; Deng, J.; and Russakovsky, O. 2020. Towards fairer datasets: Filtering and balancing the distribution of the people subtree in the imagenet hierarchy. In Proceedings of the 2020 conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, 547--558

    2020

  96. [104]

    Yi, L.; Shi, X.; Wang, N.; Zhang, J.; Wang, G.; and Liu, X. 2024. FedPE : Adaptive Model Pruning - Expanding for Federated Learning on Mobile Devices . IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 23(11): 10475--10493. Conference Name: IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing

    2024

  97. [105]

    Yin, X.; Zhu, Y.; and Hu, J. 2021. A comprehensive survey of privacy-preserving federated learning: A taxonomy, review, and future directions. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 54(6): 1--36

    2021

  98. [106]

    Yu, H.; Liu, Z.; Liu, Y.; Chen, T.; Cong, M.; Weng, X.; Niyato, D.; and Yang, Q. 2020. A Fairness -aware Incentive Scheme for Federated Learning . In Proceedings of the AAAI / ACM Conference on AI , Ethics , and Society , AIES '20, 393--399. New York, NY, USA: Association for ...

    2020

  99. [107]

    Yue, X.; Nouiehed, M.; and Kontar, R. A. 2021. GIFAIR - FL : An Approach for Group and Individual Fairness in Federated Learning . CoRR, abs/2108.02741. ArXiv: 2108.02741

    2021 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Y.; Kou, Z.; and Wang, D

    Zhang, D. Y.; Kou, Z.; and Wang, D. 2020. FairFL : A Fair Federated Learning Approach to Reducing Demographic Bias in Privacy - Sensitive Classification Models . In Wu, X.; Jermaine, C.; Xiong, L.; Hu, X.; Kotevska, O.; Lu, S.; Xu, W.; Aluru, S.; Zhai, C.; Al-Masri, E.; Chen, ...

    2020

  101. [109]

    Zhu, H.; Zhou, Y.; Qian, H.; Shi, Y.; Chen, X.; and Yang, Y. 2022. Online client selection for asynchronous federated learning with fairness consideration. IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 22(4): 2493--2506

    2022

  102. [110]

    Y.; Molinari, F.; Sprekeler, H.; and Raisch, J

    Öksüz, H. Y.; Molinari, F.; Sprekeler, H.; and Raisch, J. 2024. Boosting Fairness and Robustness in Over -the- Air Federated Learning . IEEE Control. Syst. Lett., 8: 682--687

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.