Is Fairness Truly Fair? Towards Reliable Lipschitz Fairness in Multi-Task Learning via Fixed-\texorpdfstring{$\delta$}{delta} Alignment

Abstract

Lipschitz-style individual fairness formalizes the idea that semantically similar examples should receive similar predictions, but its evaluation in multi-task learning (MTL) can be confounded by method-induced representation scales. This paper identifies threshold confounding: when the auditing tolerance is derived from each model's own representation distances, different algorithms are compared under different semantic thresholds. A threshold-drift analysis further shows how Bias rankings can change and identifies sufficient conditions for ranking preservation. We propose \textbf{ReLiF}, a reliability-aware framework that separates evaluation-time fixed-$\delta$ auditing from training-time controlled regularization. ReLiF uses a shared reference tolerance for comparable auditing and a violation-rate feedback controller to keep the Lipschitz surrogate active without letting it dominate stochastic training. This work also develops supporting analysis for threshold drift, reference-tolerance selection, and the relationship between the huberized training surrogate and its unsmoothed positive-margin counterpart. Experiments on clinical time-series benchmarks and NYUv2 (NYU Depth V2) dense prediction show that fixed-$\delta$ auditing exposes utility--fairness trade-offs that method-dependent thresholds can obscure. On NYUv2 with a ResNet50 backbone, ReLiF achieves competitive utility while substantially reducing aligned bias under shared fixed thresholds. On clinical benchmarks, ReLiF yields controlled fairness-regularized trade-offs, while fixed-$\delta$ auditing reveals that task-balancing baselines can sometimes achieve lower bias and that genuine utility--fairness trade-offs persist. These results support fixed-$\delta$ auditing as a semantically consistent protocol for evaluating Lipschitz fairness in MTL.