Proportional Fairness in Non-Centroid Clustering
Ioannis Caragiannis, Evi Micha, Nisarg Shah
Abstract
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.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 484feeb3-0ca3-425e-980b-1a28a9dedda9Cited by top-tier papers8
- Proportional Fairness in Clustering: A Social Choice PerspectiveLeon Kellerhals, Jannik PetersNeurIPS 2024 · 40 citations
- Proportional Representation in Practice: Quantifying Proportionality in Ordinal ElectionsTuva Bardal, Markus Brill, David McCune, Jannik PetersAAAI 2025 · 8 citations
- Balanced and Fair Partitioning of FriendsArgyrios Deligkas, Eduard Eiben, Stavros D. Ioannidis, Dusan Knop et al.AAAI 2025 · 7 citations
- Unifying Proportional Fairness in Centroid and Non-Centroid ClusteringBenjamin Cookson, Nisarg Shah, Ziqi YuNeurIPS 2025 · 5 citations
- Fair Transit Stop Placement: A Clustering Perspective and BeyondHaris Aziz, Ling Gai, Yuhang Guo, Jeremy VollenICML 2026 · 3 citations
Builds on5
- Proportional Participatory Budgeting with Additive UtilitiesDominik Peters, Grzegorz Pierczynski, Piotr SkowronNeurIPS 2021 · 168 citations
- Fairness in Federated Learning via Core-StabilityBhaskar Ray Chaudhury, Linyi Li, Mintong Kang, Bo Li et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 49 citations
- Proportional Fairness in Clustering: A Social Choice PerspectiveLeon Kellerhals, Jannik PetersNeurIPS 2024 · 40 citations
- Fair Federated Learning via the Proportional Veto CoreBhaskar Ray Chaudhury, Aniket Murhekar, Zhuowen Yuan, Bo Li et al.ICML 2024 · 14 citations
- Individual Preference Stability for ClusteringSaba Ahmadi, Pranjal Awasthi, Samir Khuller, Matthäus Kleindessner et al.ICML 2022 · 13 citations
Related papers
- Approximate Group Fairness for ClusteringBo Li, Lijun Li, Ankang Sun, Chenhao Wang et al.ICML 2021 · 28 citations
- Fair Clustering Under a Bounded CostSeyed A. Esmaeili, Brian Brubach, Aravind Srinivasan, John DickersonNeurIPS 2021 · 36 citations
- Fair Labeled ClusteringSeyed A. Esmaeili, Sharmila Duppala, John P. Dickerson, Brian BrubachKDD 2022 · 5 citations
- Fair Clustering via AlignmentKunwoong Kim, Jihu Lee, Sangchul Park, Yongdai KimICML 2025
- Fair Hierarchical ClusteringSara Ahmadian, Alessandro Epasto, Marina Knittel, Ravi Kumar et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 61 citations
