Blas Kolic

Sandra Benítez-Peña, Blas Kolic, Victoria Menendez et al.

Algorithmic fairness has become a central concern in computational decision-making systems, where ensuring equitable outcomes is essential for both ethical and legal reasons. Two dominant notions of fairness have emerged in the literature: Group Fairness (GF), which focuses on mitigating disparities across demographic subpopulations, and Individual Fairness (IF), which emphasizes consistent treatment of similar individuals. These notions have traditionally been studied in isolation. In contrast, this survey examines methods that jointly address GF and IF, integrating both perspectives within unified frameworks and explicitly characterizing the trade-offs between them. We provide a systematic and critical review of hybrid fairness approaches, organizing existing methods according to the fairness mechanisms they employ and the algorithmic and mathematical strategies used to reconcile multiple fairness criteria. For each class of methods, we examine their theoretical foundations, optimization mechanisms, and empirical evaluation practices, and discuss their limitations. Additionally, we discuss the challenges and identify open research directions for developing principled, context-aware hybrid fairness methods. By synthesizing insights across the literature, this survey aims to serve as a comprehensive resource for researchers and practitioners seeking to design hybrid algorithms that provide reliable fairness guarantees at both the individual and group levels.

Blas Kolic, Corrado Monti, Gianmarco De Francisci Morales et al.

In this paper, we present the first systematic comparison of Data Assimilation (DA) and Likelihood-Based Inference (LBI) in the context of Agent-Based Models (ABMs). These models generate observable time series driven by evolving, partially-latent microstates. Latent states need to be estimated to align simulations with real-world data -- a task traditionally addressed by DA, especially in continuous and equation-based models such as those used in weather forecasting. However, the nature of ABMs poses challenges for standard DA methods. Solving such issues requires adaptation of previous DA techniques, or ad-hoc alternatives such as LBI. DA approximates the likelihood in a model-agnostic way, making it broadly applicable but potentially less precise. In contrast, LBI provides more accurate state estimation by directly leveraging the model's likelihood, but at the cost of requiring a hand-crafted, model-specific likelihood function, which may be complex or infeasible to derive. We compare the two methods on the Bounded-Confidence Model, a well-known opinion dynamics ABM, where agents are affected only by others holding sufficiently similar opinions. We find that LBI better recovers latent agent-level opinions, even under model mis-specification, leading to improved individual-level forecasts. At the aggregate level, however, both methods perform comparably, and DA remains competitive across levels of aggregation under certain parameter settings. Our findings suggest that DA is well-suited for aggregate predictions, while LBI is preferable for agent-level inference.