Perceived Fairness in Networks

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2510.12028
• Title: Perceived Fairness in Networks
• Author: Arthur Charpentier (Université du Québec à Montréal, Canada; Kyoto University, Japan)
• Classification: econ.TH (Economic Theory), cs.GT (Computer Science - Game Theory)
• Publication Date: October 14, 2025 (arXiv Preprint)
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.12028

Abstract

Traditional definitions of algorithmic fairness primarily focus on population-level statistical metrics, such as demographic parity or equality of opportunity. However, in many social and economic contexts, fairness is not perceived globally but rather locally through individuals' peer networks and comparative judgments. This paper proposes a theoretical model of perceived fairness in networks, wherein each individual's sense of discrimination depends on the local topological structure of interactions. The research demonstrates that even when decision rules satisfy standard fairness criteria, perceived discrimination may persist or even increase in the presence of homophily or assortative mixing. The paper provides a formal framework for the concept of fairness perception, linking network structure, local observation, and social perception. Analytical and simulation results highlight how network topology influences the divergence between objective fairness and perceived fairness, with significant implications for algorithmic governance and applications in finance and collaborative insurance.

Research Background and Motivation

Problem Definition

The core research question addressed is: Why do individuals perceive unfair treatment even when algorithmic decisions satisfy fairness standards at the global level?

Problem Significance

1. Practical Relevance: In real socioeconomic environments, individuals' perception of fairness is often based on observations from their limited social networks rather than global statistical data
2. Policy Impact: Perceived unfairness may lead to loss of trust and reduced social cohesion, affecting the acceptance and effectiveness of algorithmic systems
3. Broad Applicability: Involves multiple domains including peer-to-peer lending, collaborative insurance, and decentralized resource allocation

Limitations of Existing Approaches

1. Global Perspective Bias: Traditional fairness definitions (e.g., demographic parity, equality of opportunity) focus solely on group-level statistical parity
2. Neglect of Network Effects: Existing methods fail to account for the influence of social network structure on fairness perception
3. Lack of Local Considerations: No modeling of the mechanism by which individuals form fairness judgments through peer comparisons

Research Motivation

The author argues for the need to establish a theoretical framework to:

1. Formalize the mechanism of fairness perception based on network neighbor comparisons
2. Analyze how network topological structures (e.g., homophily, clustering) affect perceived fairness
3. Provide quantitative analysis of the differences between objective and perceived fairness

Core Contributions

1. Theoretical Framework Innovation: Proposes the first mathematical model linking network structure with fairness perception, introducing the concept of "fairness perception operator"
2. Convergence Theory: Proves that perceived fairness converges to objective fairness as observation depth increases (Proposition 3.1)
3. Quantification of Homophily Effects: Establishes a linear relationship between network homophily and the fairness perception gap (Theorem 3.1)
4. Topological Impact Mechanisms: Reveals distinct mechanisms through which degree heterogeneity, assortativity, and clustering affect fairness perception
5. Practical Application Guidance: Provides theoretical foundation and policy recommendations for algorithmic governance in networked environments

Methodology Details

Task Definition

Input: Network graph G=(V,E,S), where V is the node set, E is the edge set, and S represents sensitive attributes (e.g., gender, race) Decision Rule: h: V → 0,1, representing the acceptance probability for each node Output: Individual-level fairness perception metric F^(d)(i;h) and group-level perceived fairness gap Δ_d(h)

Model Architecture

1. Network Representation

• Graph G=(V,E,S) with n=|V| nodes
• Adjacency matrix A∈{0,1}^(n×n)
• Sensitive attribute S_i∈{A,B} partitioning nodes into V=V_A∪V_B
• d-hop neighbors N^(d)(i)={j: path of length ≤d exists from i to j}

2. Local Observation Operator

d-hop neighbor expectation operator:

E_i^(d)[h] = (1/|N^(d)(i)|) ∑_{j∈N^(d)(i)} h(j)

3. Fairness Perception Indicator

Individual fairness perception metric:

F^(d)(i;h) = 1{E_i^(d)[h] ≤ h(i)}

This metric encodes four axioms: locality, monotonicity, neighbor expectation, and homophily (isomorphism invariance).

4. Group-Level Perceived Fairness

Vis_d(s;h) := (1/|V_s|) ∑_{i∈V_s} F^(d)(i;h)
Δ_d(h) := Vis_d(A;h) - Vis_d(B;h)

Technical Innovations

1. Dual Averaging Mechanism

Introduces distinction between node averaging and edge-weighted averaging:

h_node := (1/n) ∑_i h(i)
h_edge := (1/2m) ∑_i d_i h(i)

The difference stems from degree-outcome correlation: h_edge - h_node = Cov(d,h)/Ed

2. Homophily Formalization

Models homophily through the stochastic block model (SBM):

ρ := (p_in - p_out)/(p_in + p_out) ∈ [0,1)

where p_in is the within-group connection probability and p_out is the between-group connection probability.

3. Linear Response Analysis

For small homophily ρ, first-order expansion of perceived fairness gap:

E[Δ_1(h)] = C(π_A, π_B) · ρ · Γ(h) + o(ρ)

where Γ(h) captures the difference between group means and neighbor exposure.

Experimental Setup

Datasets

• Simulated Networks: Two-community stochastic block model with n=400 nodes
• Group Proportions: π_A, π_B variable
• Connection Probabilities: p_in, p_out adjustable to control homophily level ρ

Outcome Generation Mechanism

Individual outcomes modeled as a mixture of social category and structural position:

H_i = α·H_i^group + (1-α)·H_i^degree + ε_i

where:

• H_i^group ~ Beta(4,2) if S_i=A, Beta(2,4) if S_i=B
• H_i^degree is a standardized increasing function of degree
• α=0.7, ε_i ~ N(0, 0.05²)

Evaluation Metrics

1. Global Fairness Gap: Δ_global = EH|S=A - EH|S=B
2. Perceived Fairness Gap: Δ_perceived = F_1(A,h) - F_1(B,h)

Experimental Design

By varying the homophily index ρ∈0,1, observe the trend of changes in perceived fairness gap.

Experimental Results

Main Findings

1. Linear Amplification Effect Confirmed: Simulation results validate theoretical predictions, showing that perceived fairness gap grows nearly linearly with homophily ρ even when global fairness gap remains near zero
2. Numerical Validation: As ρ increases from 0 to 1, Δ_perceived grows from approximately 0.1 to 0.6, while Δ_global fluctuates near zero

Theoretical Results Verification

Simulations fully align with predictions of Theorem 3.1:

• At low homophily, perceived gap is small
• As network segregation increases, perceived unfairness amplifies significantly
• Linear relationship remains stable across the entire ρ range

Key Findings

1. Topology-Dominant Effect: Network structure has greater impact on perceived fairness than the decision rule itself
2. Homophily Trap: In highly segregated networks, individuals perceive severe unfairness even when algorithms are objectively fair
3. Local Bias Mechanism: Degree heterogeneity causes systematic exposure bias, with high-degree nodes' outcomes being over-observed

Related Work

Algorithmic Fairness Research

1. Group Fairness: Global statistical metrics such as demographic parity and equality of opportunity (Hardt et al., 2016)
2. Individual Fairness: Similar individuals should receive similar treatment (Dwork et al., 2012)
3. Causal Fairness: Fairness definitions based on counterfactual reasoning (Kusner et al., 2017)

Network Topology and Perception

1. Friendship Paradox: Systematic over-representation of degree-correlated attributes in local neighbors (Wu et al., 2017)
2. Homophily Theory: Assortative mixing phenomena in social networks (McPherson et al., 2001)
3. Structural Bias: Systematic influence of network structure on reasoning and perception (Peel et al., 2022)

Psychology of Perceived Discrimination

Social psychology research demonstrates that perceived discrimination arises through interpersonal comparison, depends on local social networks, and affects trust, motivation, and social cohesion (Pascoe and Richman, 2009).

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Convergence Guarantee: Perceived fairness necessarily converges to objective fairness as observation depth increases
2. Homophily Amplification Mechanism: Network segregation linearly amplifies perceived unfairness even when globally fair
3. Topological Modulation Effect: Clustering reduces variance in perceived fairness differences, providing stabilizing effects

Limitations

1. Model Simplification: Adopts binary groups and simple decision rules; real situations are more complex
2. Static Assumptions: Does not account for dynamic evolution of network structure and perception
3. Missing Behavioral Feedback: Does not model how perceived unfairness affects subsequent behavior

Future Directions

1. Endogenous Network Formation: Network formation mechanisms under fairness objectives
2. Perception Feedback Loops: How perceived unfairness affects learning dynamics and network evolution
3. Empirical Validation: Verify theoretical predictions using real social or financial network data
4. Multi-group Extension: Extend to multiple sensitive attributes and continuous attributes

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Strong Theoretical Innovation: First to combine network theory with fairness perception, providing a novel analytical perspective
2. Mathematical Rigor: Provides complete theoretical proofs and convergence analysis
3. High Practical Relevance: Addresses an important real-world problem in algorithmic fairness
4. Valuable Application Guidance: Provides theoretical foundation for fairness design in networked environments

Weaknesses

1. Insufficient Empirical Validation: Relies primarily on theoretical analysis and simulation; lacks real data verification
2. Model Assumption Limitations: Binary group assumption and static network limit applicability
3. Simplified Behavioral Mechanisms: Individual decision-making process modeling is relatively simple, not accounting for complex psychological factors
4. Abstract Policy Recommendations: While policy implications are proposed, specific implementation suggestions lack detail

Impact

1. Academic Contribution: Opens new theoretical directions for fairness research, expected to stimulate subsequent studies
2. Practical Value: Provides guidance for platform design, algorithm auditing, and regulatory policy
3. Interdisciplinary Impact: Connects computer science, economics, sociology, and other fields

Applicable Scenarios

1. Peer-to-Peer Platforms: Lending, sharing economy, and other network-dependent platforms
2. Social Networks: Recommendation algorithms, content distribution applications
3. Organizational Management: Internal performance evaluation, promotion decisions
4. Policy Making: Public policy design requiring consideration of network effects

References

1. Hardt, M., Price, E., Srebro, N. (2016). Equality of opportunity in supervised learning. NIPS.
2. Dwork, C., et al. (2012). Fairness through awareness. ITCS.
3. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., Cook, J.M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology.
4. Wu, X.Z., Percus, A.G., Lerman, K. (2017). Neighbor-neighbor correlations explain measurement bias in networks. Scientific Reports.
5. Pascoe, E.A., Richman, L.S. (2009). Perceived discrimination and health: a meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin.

Overall Assessment: This is a theoretically innovative paper that cleverly combines network science with algorithmic fairness, providing important theoretical tools for understanding fairness perception issues in practice. While empirical validation requires further strengthening, its theoretical contributions and practical application potential are highly noteworthy.