The DOI matches its Crossref record; 360 of the 366 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 480 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey
Open accessAbstract
When Machine Learning technologies are used in contexts that affect citizens, companies as well as researchers need to be confident that there will not be any unexpected social implications, such as bias towards gender, ethnicity, and/or people with disabilities. There is significant literature on approaches to mitigate bias and promote fairness, yet the area is complex and hard to penetrate for newcomers to the domain. This article seeks to provide an overview of the different schools of thought and approaches that aim to increase the fairness of Machine Learning. It organizes approaches into the widely accepted framework of pre-processing, in-processing, and post-processing methods, subcategorizing into a further 11 method areas. Although much of the literature emphasizes binary classification, a discussion of fairness in regression, recommender systems, and unsupervised learning is also provided along with a selection of currently available open source libraries. The article concludes by summarizing open challenges articulated as five dilemmas for fairness research.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This survey provides an entry-level overview of fairness in machine learning, organizing technical interventions into pre-processing, in-processing, and post-processing approaches and subcategorizing them into 11 method areas. It also reviews fairness metrics, discusses settings beyond binary classification, and concludes with five open dilemmas for fairness research.
Key findings
- The paper organizes fairness interventions into the widely accepted framework of pre-processing, in-processing, and post-processing methods, with a further 11 method areas; it notes that the literature is dominated by binary classification.
- It summarizes fairness metrics into group-based categories (parity-based, confusion matrix-based, calibration-based, score-based) and individual/counterfactual metrics, and states that many fairness notions are difficult or impossible to combine.
- It identifies five dilemmas for future research: fairness vs. model performance; disagreement/incompatibility of fairness notions; tensions with context and policy; democratization of ML vs. the fairness skills gap; and scientific advancement vs. the reality of data.
- It notes that beyond binary classification, fairness has been studied in regression, recommender systems/ranking, and unsupervised methods such as fair clustering, but says these areas are less comprehensive in the survey.
Methods
- Design: a survey/overview article that synthesizes existing fairness literature rather than presenting new empirical experiments.
- Scope: focuses on technical approaches to fairness in classification and closely related domains such as regression and rating predictions; refers elsewhere for NLP and reinforcement learning.
- Analysis: organizes approaches by intervention stage and method area, discusses metrics and trade-offs, and lists open source toolkits in an online appendix.
Limitations
- The paper states that the fairness area is complex and hard to penetrate for newcomers, that there is no universal means to measure fairness, and that no clear guidelines exist on which measures are best.
- The paper states that much of the literature emphasizes binary classification, that beyond-binary-classification coverage is less comprehensive, and that there is a need for more realistic datasets, better industry engagement, and more runtime benchmarking outside clustering.
- Evident from the text: the survey is not a systematic meta-review; it explicitly notes the absence of a structured meta-review of fairness approaches and says offering advice on approach selection is unrealistic.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 of 480 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“There is a recognition in the literature that often data is the problem, i.e., intrinsic biases in the sample will manifest themselves in any model built on the data [33,42]”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 1 INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [33]
- Not checked yetcites [42] source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIn the paper
“Speciically, there is a rich set of fairness-related work in a variety of disciplines, often with concepts that are similar or equal to current ML fairness research [147].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 1 INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [147] source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesNone of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“inappropriate uses of data leading to (un)conscious bias(es) [41,42]”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 1 INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [41]
- Not checked yetcites [42] source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesThe paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most approaches to mitigate unfairness, bias, or discrimination are based on the notion of protected or sensitive variables (we will use the terms interchangeably) and on (un)privileged groups: groups (deined by one or more sensitive variables) that are disproportionately (less) more likely to be positively classiied.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 2.1 Sensitive and Protected Variables and (Un)privileged Groups
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear? Based: unclearNone of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“We note that many variables are explicitly deined as łsensitivež by speciic legal frameworks, see [25,129,130,191,192,209,268,280,306] and the references therein.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 2.1 Sensitive and Protected Variables and (Un)privileged Groups
What the sources say
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesNone of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“While there are some readily available sets of declared sensitive variables, there are relatively few works that actively seek to determine whether other variables or rare (i.e., minority) combinations should be protected or not.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 2.1 Sensitive and Protected Variables and (Un)privileged Groups
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2] source
- Not checked yetcites [106]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesNone of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Not considering correlated variables has been shown to increase the risk of discrimination (e.g., redlining 4 ) [54,88,89,89,196,202,231,247,286,308].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 2.1 Sensitive and Protected Variables and (Un)privileged Groups
What the sources say
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIn the paper
“Technical approaches are typically applied prior to modelling (pre-processing), at the point of modelling (in-processing), or after modelling (post-processing), i.e., they emphasize intervention [33].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 1 INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [33]
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIn the paper
“[66] note that many deinitions of fairness express model output in terms of sensitive variables, without considering łrelatedž variables.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 2.1 Sensitive and Protected Variables and (Un)privileged Groups
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [66]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesNone of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Currently, combinations of these ideals using established deinitions have been shown to be mathematically intractable [27,69,177].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 2.2 Metrics
What the sources say
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
- Probably not a substantial claim. 142
- It may state two separate claims as one. 65
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, we are yet to ind a strategy using pre-, in-, and post-processing methods combined.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4 BINARY CLASSIFICATION APPROACHES
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While many researchers publish their individual approaches on GitHub and similar platforms, a few notable projects have emerged that address fairness in ML from a more general perspective.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > Additional information
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The fairness literature focuses on either the technical aspects of bias and fairness in ML, or theorises on the social, legal, and ethical aspects of ML discrimination [124].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 1 INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [124]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“data veracity and quality [320], data relativity and context shifts [42,122,249], and subjectivity ilters [41].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 1 INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“It is noteworthy that much of the early literature into fairness considered regression and correlation-based scenarios (standardized test scores, see e.g., [81]), compared to the recent emphasis on classiication (binary decisions).”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 1 INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [81] source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“For example, discrimination in hiring decisions has been examined since the 1960s [133].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 1 INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [133] source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite the increased discussion of diferent aspects and viewpoints of fairness in the 1970s as well as the founding of many modern fairness concepts, no general consensus as to what constitutes fairness or if it can/should be quantiied emerged based on this irst wave of fairness research.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 1 INTRODUCTION
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The area of fairness in ML is complex and hard to penetrate for newcomers to the domain.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, the general notions transfer to (binary) classiication settings and thus deine essential concepts such as protected/demographic variables (e.g.[72,73]), notions of group vs individual fairness (e.g.[257,278]), impossibility conditions between fairness conditions ( [81]), and metric-based fairness quantiication (e.g., true positive rates, [74]).”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 1 INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The importance of fairness and related ethical principles, however, is recognized as key to improving the trustworthiness of ML (and AI in general) [75,198].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 1 INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [75]
- Not checked yetcites [198]
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Two initial foci of fairness research were unfairness of standardized tests in higher education contexts [72,73] and discrimination in employment contexts [133].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 1 INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Yet, for correlated or otherwise related variables (often referred to as proxies or quasiidentiiers), much of the literature assumes a priori knowledge of the set of quasi-identiiers [111], or seeks to discover them on a case-by-case basis (e.g.[150,217]) towards the idea of privacy preserving data mining [6].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 2.1 Sensitive and Protected Variables and (Un)privileged Groups
What the sources say
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Key approaches (e.g.[194,205,276]) seek to protect speciic individuals and groups from being identiiable, i.e., minimize disclosure risk.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 2.1 Sensitive and Protected Variables and (Un)privileged Groups
What the sources say
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In particular, sensitive data disclosure is a long-standing challenge in protecting anonymity when data is published and/or analysed [6,111,195].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 2.1 Sensitive and Protected Variables and (Un)privileged Groups
What the sources say
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Pre-processing is argued as the most lexible part of the data science pipeline, as it makes no assumptions with respect to the choice of subsequently applied modeling technique [88].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 2.3 Technical Fairness Interventions: Pre-, In-, and Post-Processing Approaches
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [88] source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All technical fairness interventions operate at speciic locations in the ML pipeline, i.e., before, during, or after model training.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 2.3 Technical Fairness Interventions: Pre-, In-, and Post-Processing Approaches
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Thus, pre-processing approaches tend to alter the sample distributions of protected variables, or more generally perform speciic transformations on the data with the aim to remove discrimination from the training data [165].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 2.3 Technical Fairness Interventions: Pre-, In-, and Post-Processing Approaches
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [165] source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Yet, modiication of the data and/or model output may have legal implications [17] and can mean models are less interpretable [192,202], which may be at odds with current data protection legislation with respect to explainability.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 2.3 Technical Fairness Interventions: Pre-, In-, and Post-Processing Approaches
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [17]
- Not checked yetcites [192] source
- Not checked yetcites [202]
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In-processing approaches tackle this by often incorporating one or more fairness metrics into the model optimization functions in a bid to converge towards a model parameterization that maximizes performance and fairness.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 2.3 Technical Fairness Interventions: Pre-, In-, and Post-Processing Approaches
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Many are diicult / impossible to combine [69,177], but ultimately, we must keep in mind (as noted in [68]) there is no universal means to measure fairness, and no clear guideline(s) on which measures are łbestž.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 3 MEASURING FAIRNESS AND BIAS
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [68]
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, increasing fairness often results in lower overall accuracy or related metrics, leading to the necessity of analyzing potentially achievable trade-ofs in a given scenario [135].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 2.2 Metrics
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [135]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, post-processing approaches tend to apply transformations to model output to improve prediction fairness.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 2.3 Technical Fairness Interventions: Pre-, In-, and Post-Processing Approaches
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Such that equal opportunity promotes that the TPR is the same across diferent groups.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 3.2.2 Confusion Matrix-based Metrics.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [139]
- Not checked yetcites [239]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similarly to equal opportunity, in addition to TPR equalized odds simultaneously considers FPR as well, i.e., the percentage of actual negatives that are predicted as positive.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 3.2.2 Confusion Matrix-based Metrics.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Using these properties, general fairness desiderata are categorized into three łnon-discriminationž criteria [16]: Independence aims for classiiers to make their scoring independent of the group membership:”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 3.1 Abstract Fairness Criteria
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [16]
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Group-based fairness metrics essentially compare the outcome of the classiication algorithm for two or more groups.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey • 7 3.2 Group Fairness Metrics
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Over time, many diferent approaches have been suggested, most of which use metrics based on the binary classiication confusion matrix to deine fairness.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey • 7 3.2 Group Fairness Metrics
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While parity-based metrics typically consider variants of the predicted positive rate ( = 1), confusion matrixbased metrics consider additional aspects such as True Positive Rate (TPR), True Negative Rate (TNR), False Positive Rate (FPR), and False Negative Rate (FNR).”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 3.2.2 Confusion Matrix-based Metrics.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Statistical/Demographic Parity: One of the earliest deinitions of fairness, this metric deines fairness as an equal probability of being classiied with the positive label [77,98,168,313].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 3.2.1 Parity-based Metrics.
What the sources say
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most quantitative deinitions and measures of fairness are centered around three fundamental aspects of a (binary) classiier: 5 First, the sensitive variable that deines the groups for which we want to measure fairness.Second, the target variable .In binary classiication, this represents the two classes that we can predict: = 0 or = 1.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 3.1 Abstract Fairness Criteria
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast to parity, it considers the ratio between unprivileged and privileged groups.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 3.2.1 Parity-based Metrics.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“[27] adjusts this concept by looking at relative accuracy rates across diferent groups.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 3.2.2 Confusion Matrix-based Metrics.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [27]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A disadvantage of this notion, however, is that potential diferences between groups are not being taken into account.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 3.2.1 Parity-based Metrics.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Its origins are in legal fairness considerations for selection procedures which sometimes use an 80% rule to deine if a process has disparate impact (ratio smaller than 0.8) or not [98].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 3.2.1 Parity-based Metrics.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [98] source
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Test fairness/ calibration / matching conditional frequencies ( [69,139]): Essentially, test fairness or calibration wants to guarantee that the probability of = 1 is the same given a particular score.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 3.2.3 Calibration-based Metrics.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [69] source
- Not checked yetcites [139]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“1) many of the most contentious application areas that motivated the domain are binary decisions (hiring vs. not hiring; ofering a loan vs. not ofering a loan etc.);”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4 BINARY CLASSIFICATION APPROACHES
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Treatment equality [27]: Treatment equality considers the ratio of False Negative Predictions (FNR) to False Positive Predictions.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 3.2.2 Confusion Matrix-based Metrics.
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [27]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Related to the Suiciency criterion, calibration-based metrics take the predicted probability, or score, into account, diferentiating them from metrics above that use predicted and actual values.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 3.2.3 Calibration-based Metrics.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“[182] propose the concept of counterfactual fairness which builds on causal fairness models and is related to both individual and group fairness concepts.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 3.3 Individual and Counterfactual Fairness Metrics
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [182]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We note an abundance of pre-and in-processing vs. post-processing methods and that many researchers increasingly develop intervention strategies that belong to multiple stages.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4 BINARY CLASSIFICATION APPROACHES
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“2) quantifying fairness on a binary dependent variable is mathematically more convenient; addressing multi-class problems would add terms to the fairness quantity.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4 BINARY CLASSIFICATION APPROACHES
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“As compared to group-based metrics which compare scores across diferent groups, individual and counterfactual fairness metrics do not focus on comparing two or more groups as deined by a sensitive variable, but consider the outcome for each participating individual.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 3.3 Individual and Counterfactual Fairness Metrics
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“With a reliance on expressing fairness and bias mathematically, [76,128] argue that these deinitions often do not map to normative social, economic, or legal understandings of fairness.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 3.4 Commentary on Fairness Metrics
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [76]
- Not checked yetcites [128]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“[270] note that many approaches to group fairness tackle only between-group issues, as a consequence worsening within-group fairness.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 3.4 Commentary on Fairness Metrics
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [270] source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the absence of such a review, ofering advice on approach selection is unrealistic.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4 BINARY CLASSIFICATION APPROACHES
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Yet, determining which combination(s) of variables to blind is non-trivial and the risk of omitted variable bias should not be downplayed [71,160].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.1 Blinding → pre-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [71] source
- Not checked yetcites [160]
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Both omission and immunity overlook relationships with proxy variables (as discussed in subsection 2.1, we note [291] as an exception here who omit proxies), which can result in increasing bias and discrimination [177], or indirectly concealing discrimination [88].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.1 Blinding → pre-processing
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“They have also been criticized for not well examining how they would be applied in practice [253].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.2 Causal Methods → pre-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [253] source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) are a common means to represent conditional independence assumptions between variables [155].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.2 Causal Methods → pre-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [155]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This means they can have high utility in studies of fairness in industry settings.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.2 Causal Methods → pre-processing
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Thus, causal methods are speciically well suited to identifying 1) proxies of sensitive variables as discussed in subsection 2.1; 2) which subgroups are most (un)fairly treated and diferentiate the types of bias exhibited [118]; and 3) provide transparency with respect to how (classiication) decisions were made [143].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.2 Causal Methods → pre-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [118] source
Strength:boosted· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Initial results with data repair methods have shown to result in łdebiasedž classiiers which are robust to unseen test data, yet this process requires signiicant computational resources.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.2 Causal Methods → pre-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [251ś253]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“[134] also learn proxy groupings.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.3 Sampling and Subgroup Analysis → pre-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [134]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“[290] propose an iterative human-in-the-loop resampling approach where users can evaluate potential fairness issues of a model through interactive visualizations.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.3 Sampling and Subgroup Analysis → pre-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [290] source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Probabilistic veriication (e.g.[18]) of fairness measures via the sampling of sensitive variables has also been proposed to evaluate a trained model within some (small) conidence bound.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.3 Sampling and Subgroup Analysis → pre-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [18] source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“[165], propose to preferentially sample (similar to oversampling) instances łclosež to a decision boundary (based on an initial model prototype to approximate a decision boundary) as these are most likely to be discriminated or favored due to underlying biases within the training data.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.3 Sampling and Subgroup Analysis → pre-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [165] source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Similar to other evaluation approaches (e.g.[10]), these approaches present fairness as a dichotomous outcome: a model is fair, or it isn't, as opposed to quantifying how (un)fair a model is.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.3 Sampling and Subgroup Analysis → pre-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [10] source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“[148] extend this approach creating an ensemble of ensembles to operate on the protected groups.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.3 Sampling and Subgroup Analysis → pre-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [148]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Statistical hypothesis testing is employed to reveal whether models are signiicantly diferent with respect to fairness quantities or denote variable instability, i.e., when a model is not robustly fair when a given variable or set of variables are included.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.3 Sampling and Subgroup Analysis → pre-processing
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, diferent candidate groupings are often evaluated via in-or post-processing methods to inhibit overitting, maximize some fairness metric(s), and/or prevent other theoretical violations.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.3 Sampling and Subgroup Analysis → pre-processing
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“To illustrate transformation, [98] discuss transforming the distribution of SAT scores towards the median to łdegenderž the distribution into one which retains only the rank order for individuals, i.e, they remove information about protected variables from a set of covariates.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.4 Transformation → pre-processing & post-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [98] source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Similarly, and especially for decoupled classiiers, is the challenge of selecting groups: some can be rarer than others [283] and as such a balance is needed to ensure groups are as atomic as possible but robust against gerrymandering [140,170].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.3 Sampling and Subgroup Analysis → pre-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [140]
- Not checked yetcites [170]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Common approaches in group formation are recursive partitioning (e.g.[170,298]) and clustering (e.g.: [70,148]) as (good) clusters well approximate underlying data distributions and subgroups.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.3 Sampling and Subgroup Analysis → pre-processing
Strength:boosted· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are parallels between blinding (in the immunity sense) and independence mappings, as in many ways these two approaches share a common goal: creating independence from one or more speciic sensitive variables.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.4 Transformation → pre-processing & post-processing
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“[148] used clustering as a means to build stratiied samples of diferent subgroups within the data as an exercise in bagging for the training of fair ensembles.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.3 Sampling and Subgroup Analysis → pre-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [148]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Current transformation approaches operate mainly on numeric data, which is a signiicant limitation [98], yet approaches for other scenarios such as image classiications have been proposed [132].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.4 Transformation → pre-processing & post-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [98] source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“2) Understanding the relationship(s) between sensitive and potential proxy variables is hard [98], thus causal methods (subsection 4.2) may be useful precursor to transformation techniques;”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.4 Transformation → pre-processing & post-processing
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“An alternative to retaining rank order is the use of distortion constraints (e.g.[88]) which seek to prevent mapping łhighž values to łlowž values and vice versa.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.4 Transformation → pre-processing & post-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [88] source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“[52,202] deine a similar approach yet model the transformation process with diferent assumptions and objectives.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.4 Transformation → pre-processing & post-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [52] source
- Not checked yetcites [202]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“[65,173,219] transform the output of a classiier in accordance to the identiication of unfair causal pathways, either by averaging [219], constraining the conditional distribution of the decision variable [173] or through counterfactual correction [65].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.4 Transformation → pre-processing & post-processing
What the sources say
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“There are a number of challenges when applying transformation techniques: 1) the transformed data should not be signiicantly diferent from the original data, otherwise the extent of łrepairž can diminish the utility of the produced classiier [88,98,202] through data loss [125].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.4 Transformation → pre-processing & post-processing
What the sources say
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although largely a pre-processing method, transformation can also been applied within a post-processing phase.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.4 Transformation → pre-processing & post-processing
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As an approach, this is similar to the idea of calibration (see subsection 4.10) and thresholding (see subsection 4.11) .”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.4 Transformation → pre-processing & post-processing
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It has been proposed as a mechanism to detect proxy variables, inluential variables [292] and counterfactual distributions [291].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.5 Relabelling and Perturbation → pre-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [292]
- Not checked yetcites [291]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Often perturbation-based approaches are applied as a pre-processing step to prepare for an in-processing approach; often reweighing (e.g.[152]; see subsection 4.6), and/or regularisation / optimization (e.g.[283,291]; see subsection 4.7).”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.5 Relabelling and Perturbation → pre-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [152]
- Not checked yetcites [283]
- Not checked yetcites [291]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many handle this by simply removing these samples, yet this may raise other methodological issues;”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.4 Transformation → pre-processing & post-processing
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Missing data provides specific problems for transformation approaches, as it is unclear how to deal with such data samples.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It can also be applied to the test data upon the basis of strategies or probabilities learned on the training data.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.5 Relabelling and Perturbation → pre-processing
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Referred to as data-massaging by [165,313], relabelling involves the modiication of the labels of training data instances so that the proportion of positive instances are equal across all protected groups.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.5 Relabelling and Perturbation → pre-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [165] source
- Not checked yetcites [313]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Often, but not always, approaches seek to retain the overall class distribution.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.5 Relabelling and Perturbation → pre-processing
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“For example, [204] relabel the dependent variable (lip it from positive to negative or vice versa) if the data instance is determined as being discriminated against with respect to the observed outcome.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.5 Relabelling and Perturbation → pre-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [204] source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“6) transformation makes the model less interpretable [192,202], which may be at odds with data protection legislation;”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.4 Transformation → pre-processing & post-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [192] source
- Not checked yetcites [202]
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Relabelling is also often used in counterfactual studies (e.g.[142,161,291]) which investigate if lipping the (in)dependent variable(s) afect the classiication outcome.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.5 Relabelling and Perturbation → pre-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [142] source
- Not checked yetcites [161]
- Not checked yetcites [291]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“[181] also note that some classiiers may be unafected by the presence or speciic nuances of some biases, and others may be negatively afected by altering the training data in an attempt to mitigate them.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.5 Relabelling and Perturbation → pre-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [181] source
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is a relatively under-addressed area in the fairness literature, perhaps due to the introduction of SHAP valuesfoot_3 [203], which has seen an increase in attention from fairness researchers (e.g.[126]).”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.5 Relabelling and Perturbation → pre-processing
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“[114,211] investigated visual mechanisms to better display łissuesž with data to users, yet these approaches generally lack support for novice users [24].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.5 Relabelling and Perturbation → pre-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [114]
- Not checked yetcites [211]
- Not checked yetcites [24] source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This is a relatively under-addressed area in the fairness literature, perhaps due to the introduction of SHAP valuesfoot_3 [203], which has seen an increase in attention from fairness researchers (e.g.[126]).”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.5 Relabelling and Perturbation → pre-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [203]
- Not checked yetcites [126] source
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“As for transformation, modiication of the data via relabelling and perturbation is not always legally permissible [17] and changes to the data should be minimised [136,204].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.5 Relabelling and Perturbation → pre-processing
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The application of sensitivity analysis in ML is often to measure the stability of a model [242].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.5 Relabelling and Perturbation → pre-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [242] source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Yet sensitivity analysis (and explainable fairness in general) has been well motivated (although perhaps indirectly): [124] called for a better understanding of bias stemming from uncertainty, and [139] who stressed that assessment of data reliability is needed.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.5 Relabelling and Perturbation → pre-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [124]
- Not checked yetcites [139]
Strength:boosted· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Yet, relabelling and perturbation are not far from the principles of sensitivity analysis.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.5 Relabelling and Perturbation → pre-processing
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Closely related to perturbation approaches is the use of sensitivity analysis (see [254]) to explore how various aspects of the feature vector afect a given outcome.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.5 Relabelling and Perturbation → pre-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [254]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Whilst there are a number of papers that harness perturbation (it is not always referred to as perturbation) in the ML literature, this approach appears more prevalent in the discrimination-aware data mining literature where it is often used as a means of privacy preservation.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.5 Relabelling and Perturbation → pre-processing
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“[80] proposed the perturbation of feature vectors to measure the efect on model performance of speciic interventions.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.5 Relabelling and Perturbation → pre-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [80]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Weights can be introduced for multiple purposes: 1) to indicate a frequency count for an instance type (e.g.[52]), 2) to place lower/higher importance on łsensitivež training samples (e.g.[53,152,165]), or 3) to improve classiier stability (e.g.[181]).”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey • 15 4.6 Reweighing → pre-processing & in-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [181] source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Weights can be introduced for multiple purposes: 1) to indicate a frequency count for an instance type (e.g.[52]), 2) to place lower/higher importance on łsensitivež training samples (e.g.[53,152,165]), or 3) to improve classiier stability (e.g.[181]).”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey • 15 4.6 Reweighing → pre-processing & in-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [52] source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“For example, [165] seek to assign weights that take into consideration the likelihood of an instance with a speciic class and sensitive value pairing (pre-processing).”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey • 15 4.6 Reweighing → pre-processing & in-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [165] source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Whereas, [181] irst build an unweighted classiier, learn the weights of samples, then retrain their classiier using these weights (in-processing).”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey • 15 4.6 Reweighing → pre-processing & in-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [181] source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“A similar approach is taken by [152] who identify sensitive training instances (pre-processing), but then learn weights for these instances (in-processing) to optimize for the chosen fairness metric.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey • 15 4.6 Reweighing → pre-processing & in-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [152]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Some notable exceptions emphasise: 1) empirical risk subject to fairness constraints or welfare conditions (e.g.[87,142]), 2) TPR/FPR of protected groups (e.g.[19]), 3) stability of fairness (e.g.[145]), or 4) counterfactual terms (e.g.[85]).”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.7 Regularization and Constraint Optimisation → in-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [19]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Applied to fairness, regularization means adding penalty terms to penalize the classiier for discriminatory practices [168].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.7 Regularization and Constraint Optimisation → in-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [168] source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Thus, it is not hypothesis (or model) driven, but data driven [19] and based upon the notion(s) of fairness considered.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.7 Regularization and Constraint Optimisation → in-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [19]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Some notable exceptions emphasise: 1) empirical risk subject to fairness constraints or welfare conditions (e.g.[87,142]), 2) TPR/FPR of protected groups (e.g.[19]), 3) stability of fairness (e.g.[145]), or 4) counterfactual terms (e.g.[85]).”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.7 Regularization and Constraint Optimisation → in-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [145]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Some notable exceptions emphasise: 1) empirical risk subject to fairness constraints or welfare conditions (e.g.[87,142]), 2) TPR/FPR of protected groups (e.g.[19]), 3) stability of fairness (e.g.[145]), or 4) counterfactual terms (e.g.[85]).”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.7 Regularization and Constraint Optimisation → in-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [85]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“[218] also approached this via reinforcement learning.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.7 Regularization and Constraint Optimisation → in-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [218]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Yet, these approaches can also include other constraints, and/or reduce the problem to a cost-sensitive classiication problem (e.g.[3,120,221]).”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.7 Regularization and Constraint Optimisation → in-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [3]
- Not checked yetcites [120]
- Not checked yetcites [221]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“3) diferent regularization terms and penalties have diverse results on diferent data sets, i.e. this choice can have qualitative efects on the trade-of between accuracy and fairness [26].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.7 Regularization and Constraint Optimisation → in-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [26]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“[79,120,221] summarizes a number of additional constraint types as precision or budget constraints to address the accuracy-fairness trade-of (often expressed as utility or risk functions e.g.[77,135]); quantiication or coverage constraints to capture disparities in class or population frequencies; churn constraints capturing online learning scenarios and enforcing that classiiers do not difer sign”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.7 Regularization and Constraint Optimisation → in-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [79]
- Not checked yetcites [120]
- Not checked yetcites [221]
- Not checked yetcites [109] source
- Not checked yetcites [145]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This idea of łrobustness of fairnessž is often not considered by many works and would warrant better inclusion in future fairness studies.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.7 Regularization and Constraint Optimisation → in-processing
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“With the goal of better fairness generalization, the approach can also be used to quantify the robustness of fairness.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.7 Regularization and Constraint Optimisation → in-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [103]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In light of this, [103] suggest a robustness framework for fairness that ensures fairness over diferent training samples.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.7 Regularization and Constraint Optimisation → in-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [103]
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Aside from this, [117,313] note that regularization as a mechanism is fairly generic, and can lead to a lack of model robustness and generalizability.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.7 Regularization and Constraint Optimisation → in-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [117] source
- Not checked yetcites [313]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“[145] argue that stability of fairness can be addressed through regularization and present corresponding empirical evidence through extensions of [168,307].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.7 Regularization and Constraint Optimisation → in-processing
What the sources say
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“[145] argue that stability of fairness can be addressed through regularization and present corresponding empirical evidence through extensions of [168,307].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.7 Regularization and Constraint Optimisation → in-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [145]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Key challenges for regularization approaches are: 1) they are often non-convex in nature or achieve convexity at the cost of probabilistic interpretation [119];”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.7 Regularization and Constraint Optimisation → in-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [119] source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“When applied to applications of fairness in ML, an adversary instead seeks to determine whether the training process is fair, and when not, feedback from the adversary is used to improve the model [58].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.8 Adversarial Learning → pre-processing & in-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [58]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Additionally, in a Deep Neural Network setting, [115] show that diferent trade-ofs between accuracy and fairness can be achieved by selective dropout of neurons.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.8 Adversarial Learning → pre-processing & in-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [115]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“An advantage of adversarial approaches is that they can consider multiple fairness constraints [289], often treating the model as a blackbox [206].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.8 Adversarial Learning → pre-processing & in-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [289]
- Not checked yetcites [206]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is often formulated as a multi-constraint optimization problem considering many of the constraints as discussed in subsection 4.7.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.8 Adversarial Learning → pre-processing & in-processing
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Work has also started applying the notions of causal and counterfactual fairness to adversarial learning (e.g.[299]).”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.8 Adversarial Learning → pre-processing & in-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [299]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“As a reinforcement learning framework, bandits are motivated on the need for decisions to be made in an online manner [156] (although not always, e.g.[215]), and that decision makers may not be able to deine what it means to be łfairž but that they may recognize łunfairnessž when they see it [116].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.9 Bandits → in-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [116]
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This allows researchers to frame the fairness problem as a stochastic multi-armed bandit, assigning either individuals or groups of łsimilarž individuals to arms, and represent fairness as regret [156,201].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.9 Bandits → in-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [156]
- Not checked yetcites [201]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“As a reinforcement learning framework, bandits are motivated on the need for decisions to be made in an online manner [156] (although not always, e.g.[215]), and that decision makers may not be able to deine what it means to be łfairž but that they may recognize łunfairnessž when they see it [116].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.9 Bandits → in-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [156]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The use of generative adversarial networks (GAN) with fairness considerations also permit applications within unstructured (for example multimedia) data or more generally as a generative process of creating an łunbiasedž dataset using a number of samples.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.8 Adversarial Learning → pre-processing & in-processing
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is important to highlight that the diference between the application of bandits to fair classiication and fair recommendation (subsection 5.2) is often hard to distinguish.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.9 Bandits → in-processing
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The application of bandits to ML fairness has proliferated recently.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.9 Bandits → in-processing
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The main notions of fairness applied in the application of bandits are meritocratic fairness [127,156,157] (group agnostic), subjective fairness [201] (emphasises fairness in each time period ) and counterfactual fairness (e.g.[146]).”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.9 Bandits → in-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [127]
- Not checked yetcites [156]
- Not checked yetcites [157] source
- Not checked yetcites [201]
- Not checked yetcites [146]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The literature has proposed various approaches to handle the impasse of achieving calibration and other fairness measures.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.10 Calibration → post-processing
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Calibrating a ML model for multiple protected groups and/or using multiple fairness criteria at once has been shown to be impossible [69,140,174,178,200,201,223,239].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.10 Calibration → post-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [69] source
- Not checked yetcites [140]
- Not checked yetcites [174]
- Not checked yetcites [178]
- Not checked yetcites [200]
- Not checked yetcites [201]
- Not checked yetcites [223]
- Not checked yetcites [239]
Strength:boosted· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One approach has been to apply a randomization post-processing process to try and achieve a balance between accuracy and fairness, yet [76,139,178,223,239] discuss a number of shortcomings of this approach.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.10 Calibration → post-processing
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“As such, a calibrated model does not inhibit biases of decision makers, but ensures that risk estimates for various (protected) subgroups carry the same meaning [239].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.10 Calibration → post-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [239]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“[239] even note that the goals of low error and calibration are competing objectives for a model.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.10 Calibration → post-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [239]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“[223] also note that this approach is Pareto sub-optimal, and instead propose a cost-based approach to balance calibration and error parity.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.10 Calibration → post-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [223]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Notably, the individuals who are randomized are not necessarily positively impacted, and the overall accuracy of the model can be adversely afected.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.10 Calibration → post-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [76]
- Not checked yetcites [139]
- Not checked yetcites [178]
- Not checked yetcites [223]
- Not checked yetcites [239]
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“[170,175] undertake a similar approach under diferent settings.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.10 Calibration → post-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [170]
- Not checked yetcites [175] source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“[140] instead seek to achieve approximate calibration (i.e. to guarantee calibration with high probability) using a multi-calibration approach that operates on identiiable subgroups to balance individual and group fairness measures even for small samples: a speciic challenge for achieving calibration [200].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.10 Calibration → post-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [140]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“[223] also note that this approach is Pareto sub-optimal, and instead propose a cost-based approach to balance calibration and error parity.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.10 Calibration → post-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [223]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“[201] have proposed a bandit-based approach to calibration.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.10 Calibration → post-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [201]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“[200] suggest that calibration is suicient as a fairness criterion if the model is unconstrained.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.10 Calibration → post-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [200]
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Computing by hand can introduce new biases without training [286], as fairness is typically not monotonic, thus assigning a threshold value may be quite arbitrary [270].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.11 Thresholding → post-processing
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The underlying idea here is to incentivize good performance (in terms of both fairness and accuracy) across all classes and groups.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.11 Thresholding → post-processing
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Such instances are considered to be ambiguous, and therefore potentially inluenced by bias [167].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.11 Thresholding → post-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [167] source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Threshold values are often computed with respect to accuracy, but cases of class imbalance would invalidate this [148].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 4.11 Thresholding → post-processing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [148]
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“note that there is a suicient need for fairness researchers to also focus on other ML problems.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 5 BEYOND BINARY CLASSIFICATION
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An aspect that distinguishes fairness considerations in recommender systems is that fairness can be seen as multi-sided concept that can be relevant for both users (who consume the recommendations) and items.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 5.2 Recommender Systems and Ranking
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The motivation for using transfer learning is typically in response to an observable covariate shift between the source (training) and target distributions.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 5.3 Unsupervised Methods
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [31]
- Not checked yetcites [240]
- Not checked yetcites [273]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, when implementing fairness measures, we must emphasize either fairness or model performance as improving one can often detriment the other [27,54,77,89,135,139,319].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 6.1 Dilemma-1: Fairness vs. Model Performance
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [27]
- Not checked yetcites [54]
- Not checked yetcites [77]
- Not checked yetcites [89] source
- Not checked yetcites [135]
- Not checked yetcites [139]
- Not checked yetcites [319]
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“ML practitioners can measure performance in a multitude of ways, and there has been much discussion concerning the choice of diferent performance measures and approaches [84,267].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 6.1 Dilemma-1: Fairness vs. Model Performance
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [84]
- Not checked yetcites [267] source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Yet, there is a cost here, unlike other approaches to fairness in ML, fair clustering has signiicant computational costs associated to it.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 5.3 Unsupervised Methods
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“As noted by [98], however, a reduction in accuracy may in fact be the desired result, if it was discrimination that raised accuracy in the irst place.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 6.1 Dilemma-1: Fairness vs. Model Performance
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [98] source
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Approaches that utilize transfer learning do so in combination with other methods.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 5.3 Unsupervised Methods
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“E.g., [237] notes that women have difering views in the inclusion / exclusion of gender as a protected variable to men.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 6.2 Dilemma-2: (Dis)agreement and Incompatibility of "Fairness"
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [237]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The choice of performance measure(s) itself may even harbor, disguise, or create new underlying ethical concerns.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 6.1 Dilemma-1: Fairness vs. Model Performance
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, improving fairness in ML is challenging and simultaneously there are many diferent notions for researchers and practitioners to navigate.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 6.2 Dilemma-2: (Dis)agreement and Incompatibility of "Fairness"
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“[270] also note that often approaches to group fairness tackle between-group issues, worsening within-group issues through this choice.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 6.2 Dilemma-2: (Dis)agreement and Incompatibility of "Fairness"
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [270] source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“This is corroborated by [266] who note an over-emphasis in the literature on speciic measures of fairness and insuicient dialogue between researchers and afected communities.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 6.2 Dilemma-2: (Dis)agreement and Incompatibility of "Fairness"
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [266]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“We also note that currently, there is little runtime benchmarking of methods outside of clustering approaches (see [15,258]).”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 6.1 Dilemma-1: Fairness vs. Model Performance
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [15]
- Not checked yetcites [258]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“To further complicate things, [76,128] argue that with a reliance on expressing fairness mathematically these deinitions often do not map to normative social, economic, or legal understandings of fairness.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 6.2 Dilemma-2: (Dis)agreement and Incompatibility of "Fairness"
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [76]
- Not checked yetcites [128]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, beyond this, critics of current research [50,193,266,286,287,297,297,306] argue that eforts will fail unless contextual, sociocultural, and social policy challenges are better understood.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 6.3 Dilemma-3: Tensions with Context and Policy
What the sources say
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✗ Asserted: fails✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This suggests a disconnect between organizational realities and current research, which undermines advancements [197,287].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 6.3 Dilemma-3: Tensions with Context and Policy
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The literature typically hints toward łoptimizingž fairness without transparency of the root(s) of (un)fairness [192] rarely extending beyond ł(un)fairž [80,270] typically to mirror current legal thought [98].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 6.3 Dilemma-3: Tensions with Context and Policy
What the sources say
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“[164] have noted that this dilemma can be articulated as a bias in, bias out property of ML: i.e. addressing one form of bias results in another.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 6.2 Dilemma-2: (Dis)agreement and Incompatibility of "Fairness"
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [164]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“There is the prevalent assumption that łunfairnessž has a uniform context-agnostic egalitarian valuation function for decision makers when considering diferent (sub)populations [33,76,77].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 6.3 Dilemma-3: Tensions with Context and Policy
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [33]
- Not checked yetcites [76]
- Not checked yetcites [77]
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The challenge is that ML application development follows a traditional software development model: it is modular, sequential, and based on large collections of (often) open source libraries, but methods to highlight bias, fairness, or ethical issues assume high expertise in ML development and do not consider łon-the-streetž practitioners [192,287].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 6.4 Dilemma-4: Democratisation of ML vs the Fairness Skills Gap
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“[287] notes that policy makers are generally not considered or involved in the ML fairness domain.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 6.3 Dilemma-3: Tensions with Context and Policy
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [287] source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“[163,172,186,187,298] note that there is an additional challenge in the datasets used to train models: data represent past decisions, and as such inherent bias(es) in these decisions are ampliied.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 6.3 Dilemma-3: Tensions with Context and Policy
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [163]
- Not checked yetcites [172]
- Not checked yetcites [186] source
- Not checked yetcites [187]
- Not checked yetcites [298]
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, the fairness domain has relatively few open source tools available for practitioners (see online appendix) and there is little accommodation for varying levels of technical proiciency, which undermines current advancement [50,124,266,286,287].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 6.4 Dilemma-4: Democratisation of ML vs the Fairness Skills Gap
What the sources say
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Today, ML technologies are more accessible than ever.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 6.4 Dilemma-4: Democratisation of ML vs the Fairness Skills Gap
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Lowering the entry barrier to ML through democratization means an increase in (un)intentional socially insensitive uses of ML technologies.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 6.4 Dilemma-4: Democratisation of ML vs the Fairness Skills Gap
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“More realistic datasets are needed: [242] argue that approaches tend to operate on too small a subset of features raising stability concerns.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 6.6 Concluding Remarks and Moving the Literature Forwards
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [242] source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is worryingly little literature to discuss: we cannot comprehend intervention robustness under real world data challenges.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 6.5 Dilemma-5: Scientific Advancement vs. The Reality of Data
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Tackling fairness from the perspective of protected variables or groups needs methodological care, as łixingž one set of biases may inlate another [33,76] rendering the model as intrinsically discriminatory as a random model [90,239].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 6.6 Concluding Remarks and Moving the Literature Forwards
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [33]
- Not checked yetcites [76]
- Not checked yetcites [90]
- Not checked yetcites [239]
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Realistically this will never be the case.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 6.5 Dilemma-5: Scientific Advancement vs. The Reality of Data
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The literature almost unilaterally focuses on supervised learning with an overwhelming emphasis on binary classiication [26]: diversiication is needed.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 6.6 Concluding Remarks and Moving the Literature Forwards
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [26]
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Linked to this, and with very few exceptions, the approaches discussed in this article operate on the assumption of some set of (usually a priori known) łprotected variablesž.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 6.6 Concluding Remarks and Moving the Literature Forwards
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also note that there is a current trend in the literature to create new fairness measures as well as interventions.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 6.6 Concluding Remarks and Moving the Literature Forwards
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Uptake of in-processing approaches requires better integration with standard ML libraries to overcome porting challenges.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 6.6 Concluding Remarks and Moving the Literature Forwards
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“with [3] noting that often test-time access to protected attributes is needed, which may not be legally permissible, and have other undesirable efects [61].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 6.6 Concluding Remarks and Moving the Literature Forwards
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [3]
- Not checked yetcites [61]
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Perhaps, as [61,96,199,298] note, it may often be better to ix the underlying data sample (e.g.collect more data, which better represents minority or protected groups and delay the modeling phase) than try to ix a discriminatory ML model.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 6.6 Concluding Remarks and Moving the Literature Forwards
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [61]
- Not checked yetcites [96]
- Not checked yetcites [199]
- Not checked yetcites [298]
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“As a closing thought many approaches to reduce discrimination may themselves be unethical or impractical in settings where model accuracy is critical such as in healthcare, or criminal justice scenarios [61].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 6.6 Concluding Remarks and Moving the Literature Forwards
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [61]
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“They also assume suicient knowledge of the data, and make assumptions over its veracity [76].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 6.6 Concluding Remarks and Moving the Literature Forwards
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [76]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Additionally, [9] provide an overview of commonly used datasets in Algorithmic Fairness publications, e.g. for the evaluation of novel mitigation strategies.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [9]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Pre-processing methods, which modify the training data, are at odds with policies like General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)'s right to an explanation, and can introduce new subjectivity biases [286].”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > 6.6 Concluding Remarks and Moving the Literature Forwards
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [286] source
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Aequitas [13] Open source bias audit toolkit.Focuses on standard ML metrics and their evaluation for diferent subgroups of a protective attribute.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [13]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“FairTest [14] Generic framework that provides measures and statistical tests to detect unwanted associations between the output of an algorithm and a sensitive attribute.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [14]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Fairlean 1 Implements several parity-based fairness measures and algorithms [1,2,6] for binary classiication and regression as well as a dashboard to visualize disparity in accuracy and parity.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > Additional information
What the sources say
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Audit AI 4 Implements various statistical signiicance tests to detect discrimination between groups and bias from standard machine learning procedures.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > Additional information
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“AIF360 [3] Set of tools that provides several pre-, in-, and post-processing approaches for binary classiication as well as several pre-implemented datasets that are commonly used in Fairness research”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [3]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Responsibly [11] Provides datasets, metrics, and algorithms to measure and mitigate bias in classiication as well as NLP (bias in word embeddings).”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > Additional information
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [11]
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“ML Fairness Gym Part of Google's Open AI project, a simulation toolkit to study long-run impacts of ML decisions.5 Analyzes how algorithms that take fairness into consideration change the underlying data (previous classiications) over time (see e.g.[4,5,8,10,12]).”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > Additional information
What the sources say
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fairness 2 Tool that provides commonly used fairness metrics (e.g., statistical parity, equalized odds) for R projects.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > Additional information
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fairness Measures 3 Project that considers quantitative deinitions of discrimination in classiication and ranking scenarios.Provides datasets, measures, and algorithms (for ranking) that investigate fairness.”
§ Fairness in Machine Learning: A Survey > Additional information
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
The area of fairness in ML is complex and hard to penetrate for newcomers to the domain.
“There is signiicant literature on approaches to mitigate bias and promote fairness, yet the area is complex and hard to penetrate for newcomers to the domain.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Current ML libraries often do not (yet) accommodate means to ascertain social accountability.
“All of this results in an array of challenges that can be overwhelming, and current ML libraries often do not (yet) accommodate means to ascertain social accountability.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Fairness is a complex topic that has to try and balance many different contexts, multi-faceted sociocultural concepts, aspects of equality and diversity, and ethical principles.
“However, fairness is a complex topic that has to try and balance many diferent contexts, multi-faceted sociocultural concepts (beyond race, gender, age etc.), aspects of equality and diversity, and ethical principles such as whether it is even appropriate to use ML at all.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Sensitive variables often are correlated with other variables in the data.
“For instance, sensitive variables often are correlated with other variables in the data, and approaches focusing on immunity aim to prevent these indirect efects from resulting in discrimination measured through the sensitive variable.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Training data often reflects some form of underlying discrimination.
“Approaches using causal methods recognise that the training data often relects some form of underlying discrimination.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Missing data provides specific problems for transformation approaches, as it is unclear how to deal with such data samples.
“5) missing data provides speciic problems for transformation approaches, as it is unclear how to deal with such data samples.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Techniques, such as SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) and Grad-CAM have been used in FL-based models, helping clinicians with visual insights to find the most significant features.”
From Federated Learning in Smart Healthcare: A Comprehensive Review on Privacy, Security, and Predictive Analytics with IoT Integration (2024) · cites this paper as [62]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“It has been used in diabetic retinopathy detection systems by producing interpretable outputs, enhancing the clinician’s confidence [62].”
From Federated Learning in Smart Healthcare: A Comprehensive Review on Privacy, Security, and Predictive Analytics with IoT Integration (2024) · cites this paper as [62]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Studies such as Wan et al. [4] and Caton and Haas [5] provide comprehensive reviews of processing techniques and fairness in ML but often lack a specific focus on how these techniques impact underserved populations.”
From Advancing Health Equity through Multi-Level Fairness in Health Informatics (2026) · cites this paper as [5]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Immunity to sensitive variables both addresses and overlooks proxies
MinorThe synopsis says immunity addresses indirect effects of sensitive variables through correlated input variables. The commentary then says immunity overlooks relationships with proxy variables, which are those correlated inputs.
“Whereas omission refers to not including the sensitive variables as input for the prediction models, immunity also considers the indirect efect that sensitive variables can have on other (input) variables of a prediction model.”
“Both omission and immunity overlook relationships with proxy variables (as discussed in subsection 2.1, we note [291] as an exception here who omit proxies), which can result in increasing bias and discrimination [177], or indirectly concealing discrimination [88].”
Citations
Cites
UCI Machine Learning Repository
Asuncion, A. (2007) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 24,190
A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions
Lundberg, S., & Lee, S.-I. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1705.07874 · Cited by 23,707
Advances in neural information processing systems 7
Cios, K. J., & Shields, M. E. (1997) · Neurocomputing · doi:10.1016/s0925-2312(97)90018-7 · Cited by 22,093
GAN(Generative Adversarial Nets)
淳司, 柴. (2017) · Journal of Japan Society for Fuzzy Theory and Intelligent Informatics · doi:10.3156/jsoft.29.5_177_2 · Cited by 20,507
The WEKA data mining software: an update
Hall, M., Frank, E., Holmes, G., Pfahringer, B., Reutemann, P., & Witten, I. H. (2009) · ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter · doi:10.1145/1656274.1656278 · Cited by 17,750
Proceedings of IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
(1993) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr.1993.341010 · Cited by 14,475
Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 29
Teymur, O., Zygalakis, K., & Calderhead, B. (2016) · Cited by 13,881
Gauriat, C.-M., Pencolé, Y., Ribot, P., et al. (2024) · HAL · doi:10.4230/oasics.dx.2024.27 · Cited by 12,623
Statistical Comparisons of Classifiers over Multiple Data Sets
Demšar, J. (2006) · doi:10.5555/1248547.1248548 · Cited by 12,051
k-ANONYMITY: A MODEL FOR PROTECTING PRIVACY
SWEENEY, L. (2002) · International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1142/s0218488502001648 · Cited by 8,571
American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass.
Fernandez, R. M., Massey, D. S., & Denton, N. A. (1993) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2074502 · Cited by 6,191
A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learning
Mehrabi, N., Morstatter, F., Saxena, N., Lerman, K., & Galstyan, A. (2022) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3457607 · Cited by 5,812
boyd, D., & Crawford, K. (2012) · Information, Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/1369118x.2012.678878 · Cited by 5,479
Lipton, Z. C. (2018) · Queue · doi:10.1145/3236386.3241340 · Cited by 5,427
L -diversity: Privacy beyond k -anonymity
Machanavajjhala, A., Kifer, D., Gehrke, J., & Venkitasubramaniam, M. (2007) · ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data · doi:10.1145/1217299.1217302 · Cited by 3,617
(2018) · Cited by 3,510
Dwork, C., Hardt, M., Pitassi, T., Reingold, O., & Zemel, R. (2012) · Proceedings of the 3rd Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference · doi:10.1145/2090236.2090255 · Cited by 3,501
t-Closeness: Privacy Beyond k-Anonymity and l-Diversity
Li, N., Li, T., & Venkatasubramanian, S. (2007) · 2007 IEEE 23rd International Conference on Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/icde.2007.367856 · Cited by 3,451
How the machine “thinks”: Understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms
Burrell, J. (2016) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/2053951715622512 · Cited by 3,196 · cited 4×
“[118, 269, 49, 72, 15, 33, 96, 217, 297, 41, 42, 203, 181]), governments (e.”
InfluentialBarocas, S., & Selbst, A. D. (2014) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2477899 · Cited by 3,048
Privacy-preserving data mining
Agrawal, R., & Srikant, R. (2000) · ACM SIGMOD Record · doi:10.1145/335191.335438 · Cited by 3,009
Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biases
Caliskan, A., Bryson, J. J., & Narayanan, A. (2017) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aal4230 · Cited by 2,887
American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass.
John, C. S., Massey, D. S., & Denton, N. A. (1994) · Social Forces · doi:10.2307/2579960 · Cited by 2,775
Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learning
Hardt, M., Price, E., & Srebro, N. (2016) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1610.02413 · Cited by 2,536
Artificial intelligence and statistics
Yu, B., & Kumbier, K. (2018) · Frontiers of Information Technology & Electronic Engineering · doi:10.1631/fitee.1700813 · Cited by 2,367
(2016) · Cited by 2,334
Geodesic flow kernel for unsupervised domain adaptation
Gong, B., Shi, Y., Sha, F., & Grauman, K. L. (2012) · IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2012.6247911 · Cited by 2,278
Fair prediction with disparate impact: a study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments
Chouldechova, A. (2017) · Big Data · doi:10.1089/big.2016.0047 · Cited by 2,159
Beyond Accuracy, F-Score and ROC: A Family of Discriminant Measures for Performance Evaluation
Sokolova, M., Japkowicz, N., & Szpakowicz, S. (2006) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/11941439_114 · Cited by 1,974
The KDD process for extracting useful knowledge from volumes of data
Fayyad, U., Piatetsky-Shapiro, G., & Smyth, P. (1996) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/240455.240464 · Cited by 1,934
Torrey, L. A., & SHAVLIK, J. W. (2010) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-766-9.ch011 · Cited by 1,887
Certifying and Removing Disparate Impact
Feldman, M., Friedler, S. A., Moeller, J., Scheidegger, C., & Venkatasubramanian, S. (2015) · Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/2783258.2783311 · Cited by 1,827
Sensitivity Analysis in Practice: A Guide to Assessing Scientific Models
Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S., Campolongo, F., & Ratto, M. (2004) · Cited by 1,797
Privacy-preserving data mining
Agrawal, R., & Srikant, R. (2000) · Proceedings of the 2000 ACM SIGMOD international conference on Management of data · doi:10.1145/342009.335438 · Cited by 1,719
Privacy-preserving data publishing: A survey of recent developments
Fung, B. C. M., Wang, K., Chen, R., & Yu, P. S. (2010) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/1749603.1749605 · Cited by 1,704
Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddings
Bolukbasi, T., Chang, K.-W., Zou, J., Saligrama, V., & Kalai, A. (2016) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1607.06520 · Cited by 1,615
Bellamy, R. K. E., Dey, K., Hind, M., Hoffman, S. C., Houde, S., Kannan, K., Lohia, P., Martino, J., Mehta, S., Mojsilovic, A., et al. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1810.01943 · Cited by 1,581
Dataset Shift in Machine Learning
(2008) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/9780262170055.001.0001 · Cited by 1,553
Mitigating Unwanted Biases with Adversarial Learning
Zhang, B. H., Lemoine, B., & Mitchell, M. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society · doi:10.1145/3278721.3278779 · Cited by 1,387
Auto-WEKA: combined selection and hyperparameter optimization of classification algorithms
Thornton, C., Hutter, F., Hoos, H. H., & Leyton-Brown, K. (2013) · Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining · doi:10.1145/2487575.2487629 · Cited by 1,359
Data preprocessing techniques for classification without discrimination
Kamiran, F., & Calders, T. (2012) · Knowledge and Information Systems · doi:10.1007/s10115-011-0463-8 · Cited by 1,305
(2015) · neural information processing systems · Cited by 1,305
Fisher, A., Rudin, C., & Dominici, F. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1801.01489 · Cited by 1,165
Algorithmic Decision Making and the Cost of Fairness
Corbett-Davies, S., Pierson, E., Feller, A., Goel, S., & Huq, A. (2017) · Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/3097983.3098095 · Cited by 1,149
(2013) · Cited by 1,126
Fairness definitions explained
Verma, S., & Rubin, J. (2018) · Proceedings of the International Workshop on Software Fairness · doi:10.1145/3194770.3194776 · Cited by 1,124
Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy
Jain, A. (2017) · Business Economics · doi:10.1057/s11369-017-0027-3 · Cited by 1,094
Privacy Preserving Data Mining
Lindell, Y., & Pinkas, B. (2000) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/3-540-44598-6_3 · Cited by 1,077
Human Decisions and Machine Predictions
Kleinberg, J., Lakkaraju, H., Leskovec, J., Ludwig, J., & Mullainathan, S. (2018) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1093/qje/qjx032 · Cited by 1,040
Kusner, M. J., Loftus, J. R., Russell, C., & Silva, R. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1703.06856 · Cited by 995
Fairness in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments: The State of the Art
Berk, R., Heidari, H., Jabbari, S., Kearns, M., & Roth, A. (2021) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124118782533 · Cited by 988 · cited 8×
“[27, 43, 98, 213, 11, 25]), automating chat and (tech) support, and screening job applications (see [226, 267]).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialInherent trade-offs in the fair determination of risk scores
Kleinberg, J., Mullainathan, S., & Raghavan, M. (2017) · Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik · doi:10.4230/lipics.itcs.2017.43 · Cited by 943
Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scores
Kleinberg, J., Mullainathan, S., & Raghavan, M. (2016) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1609.05807 · Cited by 941
“But the data is already public”: on the ethics of research in Facebook
Zimmer, M. (2010) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s10676-010-9227-5 · Cited by 900
Bender, E. M., & Friedman, B. (2018) · Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00041 · Cited by 854
Mitigating bias in algorithmic hiring: evaluating claims and practices
Raghavan, M., Barocas, S., Kleinberg, J., & Levy, K. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3351095.3372828 · Cited by 845
Algorithmic regulation: A critical interrogation
Yeung, K. (2018) · Regulation & Governance · doi:10.1111/rego.12158 · Cited by 842
Proceedings of the 18th European conference on information systems (ECIS2010)
Tervonen, T., Brock, D. B., Graeff, D. P., & Hillege, H. L. (2010) · Cited by 836
Three naive Bayes approaches for discrimination-free classification.
Calders, T., & Verwer, S. (2010) · Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery · doi:10.1007/s10618-010-0190-x · Cited by 764
Covariate Shift Adaptation by Importance Weighted Cross Validation
Sugiyama, M., Krauledat, M., & Müller, K. (2007) · doi:10.5555/1314498.1390324 · Cited by 733
Datta, A., Sen, S., & Zick, Y. (2016) · 2016 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP) · doi:10.1109/sp.2016.42 · Cited by 728
Lepri, B., Oliver, N., Letouzé, E., Pentland, A., & Vinck, P. (2018) · Philosophy & Technology · doi:10.1007/s13347-017-0279-x · Cited by 709
Fairness-Aware Classifier with Prejudice Remover Regularizer
Kamishima, T., Akaho, S., Asoh, H., & Sakuma, J. (2012) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-33486-3_3 · Cited by 694
Prediction-Based Decisions and Fairness: A Catalogue of Choices, Assumptions, and Definitions
Mitchell, S., Potash, E., Barocas, S., D'Amour, A., & Lum, K. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1811.07867 · Cited by 687
Algorithmic Fairness: Choices, Assumptions, and Definitions
Mitchell, S., Potash, E., Barocas, S., D'Amour, A., & Lum, K. (2021) · Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application · doi:10.1146/annurev-statistics-042720-125902 · Cited by 687
Discrimination-aware data mining
Pedreshi, D., Ruggieri, S., & Turini, F. (2008) · Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining · doi:10.1145/1401890.1401959 · Cited by 676
Fairness in Machine Learning: Lessons from Political Philosophy
Binns, R. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1712.03586 · Cited by 676
Measuring and Mitigating Unintended Bias in Text Classification
Dixon, L., Li, J., Sorensen, J., Thain, N., & Vasserman, L. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society · doi:10.1145/3278721.3278729 · Cited by 674
Fairness of Exposure in Rankings
Singh, A., & Joachims, T. (2018) · ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) · doi:10.1145/3219819.3220088 · Cited by 673
TEST BIAS: PREDICTION OF GRADES OF NEGRO AND WHITE STUDENTS IN INTEGRATED COLLEGES
Cleary, T. A. (1968) · Journal of Educational Measurement · doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.1968.tb00613.x · Cited by 658
Personality in 100,000 Words: A large-scale analysis of personality and word use among bloggers
Yarkoni, T. (2010) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2010.04.001 · Cited by 637
Zafar, M. B., Valera, I., Gomez Rodriguez, M., & Gummadi, K. P. (2017) · Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web · doi:10.1145/3038912.3052660 · Cited by 632
Dawid, A. P. (1982) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1982.10477856 · Cited by 625 · cited 1×
“Synopsis: Calibration is the process of ensuring that the proportion of positive predictions is equal to the proportion of positive examples [83].”
BackgroundOn Fairness and CalibrationPreprint
Pleiss, G., Raghavan, M., Wu, F., Kleinberg, J. M., & Weinberger, K. Q. (2017) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1709.02012 · Cited by 607
A comparative study of fairness-enhancing interventions in machine learning
Friedler, S. A., Scheidegger, C., Venkatasubramanian, S., Choudhary, S., Hamilton, E. P., & Roth, D. (2019) · Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3287560.3287589 · Cited by 601
Censoring Representations with an AdversaryPreprint
Edwards, H., & Storkey, A. (2015) · International Conference on Learning Representations · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1511.05897 · Cited by 563
Human Decisions and Machine Predictions
Kleinberg, J., Lakkaraju, H., Leskovec, J., Ludwig, J., & Mullainathan, S. (2017) · doi:10.3386/w23180 · Cited by 545
Veale, M., & Binns, R. (2017) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/2053951717743530 · Cited by 512
FA*IR: A Fair Top-k Ranking Algorithm
Zehlike, M., Bonchi, F., Castillo, C., Hajian, S., Megahed, M., & Baeza-Yates, R. (2017) · Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management · doi:10.1145/3132847.3132938 · Cited by 496
Aequitas: A Bias and Fairness Audit Toolkit
Saleiro, P., Kuester, B., Hinkson, L., London, J., Stevens, A., Anisfeld, A., Rodolfa, K. T., & Ghani, R. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1811.05577 · Cited by 496
Bousquet, O., Elisseeff, A., & Ron, D. (2001) · MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) · Cited by 493
Mitigating Gender Bias in Natural Language Processing: Literature Review
Sun, T., Gaut, A., Tang, S., Huang, Y., ElSherief, M., Zhao, J., Mirza, D., Belding, E., Chang, K.-W., & Wang, W. Y. (2019) · Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1159 · Cited by 492
Veale, M., Van Kleek, M., & Binns, R. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3173574.3174014 · Cited by 490 · cited 6×
“However, the fairness domain has relatively few open-source tools available for practitioners (see online appendix), and there is little accommodation for varying levels of technical proficiency, which undermines current advancement [50, 124, 266, 286, 287].”
BackgroundInfluentialThe Phantom Menace: Omitted Variable Bias in Econometric Research
Clarke, K. A. (2005) · Conflict Management and Peace Science · doi:10.1080/07388940500339183 · Cited by 484 · cited 1×
“It also ignores that discrimination may not be one variable in isolation, but rather the result of several joint characteristics [217] and as such determining which combination(s) of variables to blind is non-trivial and the phenomenon of omitted variable bias should not be downplayed [68, 150].”
Learning Adversarially Fair and Transferable RepresentationsPreprint
Madras, D., Creager, E., Pitassi, T., & Zemel, R. S. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1802.06309 · Cited by 479
Optimized Pre-Processing for Discrimination Prevention
Calmon, F. P., Wei, D., Vinzamuri, B., Ramamurthy, K. N., & Varshney, K. R. (2017) · neural information processing systems · Cited by 472
Preventing Fairness Gerrymandering: Auditing and Learning for Subgroup Fairness
Kearns, M., Neel, S., Roth, A., & Wu, Z. S. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1711.05144 · Cited by 469 · cited 2×
“[276, 161]) and clustering (e.”
BackgroundA Reductions Approach to Fair ClassificationPreprint
Agarwal, A., Beygelzimer, A., Dudı́k, M., Langford, J. C., & Wallach, H. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1803.02453 · Cited by 467
Zwitter, A. (2014) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/2053951714559253 · Cited by 465
The Measure and Mismeasure of Fairness
Corbett-Davies, S., Gaebler, J. D., Nilforoshan, H., Shroff, R., & Goel, S. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1808.00023 · Cited by 444
Zarsky, T. (2016) · Science, Technology, & Human Values · doi:10.1177/0162243915605575 · Cited by 422
Algorithmic Stability and Sanity-Check Bounds for Leave-One-Out Cross-Validation
Kearns, M., & Ron, D. (1999) · Neural Computation · doi:10.1162/089976699300016304 · Cited by 407
Fairness testing: testing software for discrimination
Galhotra, S., Brun, Y., & Meliou, A. (2017) · Proceedings of the 2017 11th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3106237.3106277 · Cited by 405 · cited 2×
“A key objective is to uncover causal relationships in the data and find dependencies between sensitive and non-sensitive variables [66, 113, 118, 172, 182, 219, 250].”
BackgroundScaling of End-To-End Governance Risk Assessments for AI Systems (Practitioner Track)
Weimer, D., Gensch, A., & Koller, K. (2025) · OASIcs : OpenAccess Series in Informatics · doi:10.4230/oasics.saia.2024.4 · Cited by 398
Where are human subjects in big data research? the emerging ethics divide
Metcalf, J., & Crawford, K. (2016) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/2053951716650211 · Cited by 394
Examining Gender and Race Bias in Two Hundred Sentiment Analysis Systems
Kiritchenko, S., & Mohammad, S. (2018) · Proceedings of the Seventh Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics · doi:10.18653/v1/s18-2005 · Cited by 384
FairGAN: Fairness-aware Generative Adversarial Networks
Xu, D., Yuan, S., Zhang, L., & Wu, X. (2018) · 2018 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data) · doi:10.1109/bigdata.2018.8622525 · Cited by 379
Measuring Fairness in Ranked Outputs
Yang, K., & Stoyanovich, J. (2017) · Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Scientific and Statistical Database Management · doi:10.1145/3085504.3085526 · Cited by 378
A Survey on the Fairness of Recommender Systems
Wang, Y., Ma, W., Zhang, M., Liu, Y., & Ma, S. (2022) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/3547333 · Cited by 377
Fairness in Recommendation Ranking through Pairwise Comparisons
Beutel, A., Chen, J., Doshi, T. S., Qian, H., Wei, L., Wu, Y., Heldt, L., Zhao, Z., Hong, L., Ed, H., et al. (2019) · ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) · doi:10.1145/3292500.3330745 · Cited by 374
Avoiding Discrimination through Causal Reasoning
Kilbertus, N., Rojas-Carulla, M., Parascandolo, G., Hardt, M., Janzing, D., & Schölkopf, B. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1706.02744 · Cited by 358
Inherent Tradeoffs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scores
Raghavan, M. (2023) · ACM eBooks · doi:10.1145/3603195.3603197 · Cited by 350
Gender and Dialect Bias in YouTube’s Automatic Captions
Tatman, R. (2017) · Proceedings of the First ACL Workshop on Ethics in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/w17-1606 · Cited by 338
Equity of Attention: Amortizing Individual Fairness in Rankings
Biega, A. J., Gummadi, K. P., & Weikum, G. (2018) · The 41st International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research & Development in Information Retrieval · doi:10.1145/3209978.3210063 · Cited by 337
Learnability, Stability and Uniform Convergence
Shalev‐Shwartz, S., Shamir, O., Srebro, N., & Sridharan, K. (2010) · doi:10.5555/1756006.1953019 · Cited by 328
Reducing Gender Bias in Abusive Language Detection
Park, J. H., Shin, J., & Fung, P. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d18-1302 · Cited by 323 · cited 2×
“Unintended bias can be introduced to the data by personal biases during manual data labelling [84] as well as biases that occur in language use for example through non-native speaker errors [293, 258, 35] or how the text data is prepared as well as the general model architecture [215].”
Discriminative Learning Under Covariate Shift
Bickel, S., Brückner, M., & Scheffer, T. (2009) · doi:10.5555/1577069.1755858 · Cited by 320
A Methodology for Direct and Indirect Discrimination Prevention in Data Mining
Hajian, S., & Domingo-Ferrer, J. (2013) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2012.72 · Cited by 312
Nightmare at test time: robust learning by feature deletion
Globerson, A., & Roweis, S. (2006) · Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on Machine learning - ICML '06 · doi:10.1145/1143844.1143889 · Cited by 309
Steck, H. (2018) · ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys) · doi:10.1145/3240323.3240372 · Cited by 309
Discrimination Aware Decision Tree Learning
Kamiran, F., Calders, T., & Pechenizkiy, M. (2010) · 2010 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining · doi:10.1109/icdm.2010.50 · Cited by 303
Decision Theory for Discrimination-Aware Classification
Kamiran, F., Karim, A., & Zhang, X. (2012) · 2012 IEEE 12th International Conference on Data Mining · doi:10.1109/icdm.2012.45 · Cited by 300
50 Years of Test (Un)fairness: Lessons for Machine Learning
Hutchinson, B., & Mitchell, M. (2019) · Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3287560.3287600 · Cited by 297
Towards a Code of Ethics for Artificial Intelligence
Boddington, P. (2017) · Artificial Intelligence: Foundations, Theory, and Algorithms · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-60648-4 · Cited by 294
Olivas, E. S., Martín‐Guerrero, J. D., Martı́nez-Sober, M., Magdalena‐Benedito, R., & Serrano-López, A. J. (2009) · Cited by 293
A multidisciplinary survey on discrimination analysis
Romei, A., & Ruggieri, S. (2014) · The Knowledge Engineering Review · doi:10.1017/s0269888913000039 · Cited by 288
Data Decisions and Theoretical Implications when Adversarially Learning Fair RepresentationsPreprint
Beutel, A., Chen, J., Zhao, Z., & Chi, E. H. (2017) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1707.00075 · Cited by 282
Auditing black-box models for indirect influence
Adler, P., Falk, C., Friedler, S. A., Nix, T., Rybeck, G., Scheidegger, C., Smith, B., & Venkatasubramanian, S. (2018) · Knowledge and Information Systems · doi:10.1007/s10115-017-1116-3 · Cited by 280
Kleinberg, J., Ludwig, J., Mullainathan, S., & Rambachan, A. (2018) · AEA Papers and Proceedings · doi:10.1257/pandp.20181018 · Cited by 278
THORNDIKE, R. L. (1971) · Journal of Educational Measurement · doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.1971.tb00907.x · Cited by 265
k-NN as an implementation of situation testing for discrimination discovery and prevention
Luong, B. T., Ruggieri, S., & Turini, F. (2011) · Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining · doi:10.1145/2020408.2020488 · Cited by 263
Detecting racial bias in algorithms and machine learning
Lee, N. T. (2018) · Journal of Information Communication and Ethics in Society · doi:10.1108/jices-06-2018-0056 · Cited by 263
Trustworthy ai: A computational perspective
Liu, H., Wang, Y., Fan, W., Liu, X., Li, Y., Jain, S., Liu, Y., Jain, A., & Tang, J. (2023) · ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology · doi:10.1145/3546872 · Cited by 261
A survey on datasets for fairness‐aware machine learning
Le Quy, T., Roy, A., Iosifidis, V., Zhang, W., & Ntoutsi, E. (2022) · WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery · doi:10.1002/widm.1452 · Cited by 261
Trustworthy AI: A Computational Perspective
Liu, H., Wang, Y., Fan, W., Liu, X., Li, Y., Jain, S., Liu, Y., Jain, A. K., & Tang, J. (2021) · arXiv · Cited by 261
Learning to Pivot with Adversarial NetworksPreprint
Louppe, G., Kagan, M., & Cranmer, K. (2016) · Neural Information Processing Systems · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1611.01046 · Cited by 250
What recommenders recommend: an analysis of recommendation biases and possible countermeasures
Jannach, D., Lerche, L., Kamehkhosh, I., & Jugovac, M. (2015) · User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction · doi:10.1007/s11257-015-9165-3 · Cited by 249
Predictive biases in natural language processing models: A conceptual framework and overview
Shah, D. S., Schwartz, H. A., & Hovy, D. (2020) · Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.468 · Cited by 241
Assessing the bias in samples of large online networks
González-Bailón, S., Wang, N., Rivero, A., Borge-Holthoefer, J., & Moreno, Y. (2014) · Social Networks · doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2014.01.004 · Cited by 238
Disparate Impact in Big Data PolicingPreprint
Selbst, A. D. (2017) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2819182 · Cited by 237
Classification with Fairness Constraints: A Meta-Algorithm with Provable Guarantees
Celis, L. E., Huang, L., Keswani, V., & Vishnoi, N. K. (2019) · Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3287560.3287586 · Cited by 231
A Framework for Understanding Unintended Consequences of Machine Learning
Suresh, H., & Guttag, J. V. (2019) · Cited by 229
Fairness in Information Access Systems
Ekstrand, M. D., Das, A., Burke, R., & Díaz, F. (2022) · Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval · doi:10.1561/1500000079 · Cited by 229
Wasserstein Fair ClassificationPreprint
Jiang, R., Pacchiano, A., Stepleton, T., Jiang, H., & Chiappa, S. (2019) · Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1907.12059 · Cited by 225
Obtaining Fairness using Optimal Transport TheoryPreprint
del Barrio, E., Gamboa, F., Gordaliza, P., & Loubes, J.-M. (2018) · International Conference on Machine Learning · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1806.03195 · Cited by 223
Interpretable classification models for recidivism prediction
Zeng, J., Ustun, B., & Rudin, C. (2017) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A: Statistics in Society · doi:10.1111/rssa.12227 · Cited by 220
On the relation between accuracy and fairness in binary classificationPreprint
Žliobaitė, I. (2015) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1505.05723 · Cited by 210
Integrating Ethics within Machine Learning Courses
Saltz, J., Skirpan, M. W., Fiesler, C. L., Gorelick, M., YEH, T. P., Heckman, R., Dewar, N., & Beard, N. (2019) · ACM Transactions on Computing Education · doi:10.1145/3341164 · Cited by 209
Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society
(2018) · doi:10.1145/3278721 · Cited by 208
Grgic-Hlaca, N., Redmiles, E. M., Gummadi, K. P., & Weller, A. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference on World Wide Web - WWW '18 · doi:10.1145/3178876.3186138 · Cited by 207
Speicher, T., Heidari, H., Grgic-Hlaca, N., Gummadi, K. P., Singla, A., Weller, A., & Zafar, M. B. (2018) · Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining · doi:10.1145/3219819.3220046 · Cited by 207
ANOTHER LOOK AT “CULTURAL FAIRNESS”1
DARLINGTON, R. B. (1971) · Journal of Educational Measurement · doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.1971.tb00908.x · Cited by 199
Fairness in Learning: Classic and Contextual Bandits
Joseph, M., Kearns, M., Morgenstern, J., & Roth, A. (2016) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1605.07139 · Cited by 199 · cited 1×
“The application of bandits to ML fairness [93, 146, 147, 189, 108] is nascent.”
BackgroundA Convex Framework for Fair Regression
Berk, R., Heidari, H., Jabbari, S., Joseph, M., Kearns, M., Morgenstern, J., Neel, S., & Roth, A. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1706.02409 · Cited by 198
Multiaccuracy: Black-Box Post-Processing for Fairness in Classification
Kim, M. P., Ghorbani, A., & Zou, J. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society · doi:10.1145/3306618.3314287 · Cited by 193
Why is my classifier discriminatory?
Chen, I., Johansson, F. D., & Sontag, D. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1805.12002 · Cited by 185 · cited 7×
“Perhaps, as [60, 187, 94, 276] note, it may often be better to fix the underlying data sample (e.”
BackgroundInfluentialLearning Non-Discriminatory Predictors
Woodworth, B., Gunasekar, S., Ohannessian, M. I., & Srebro, N. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1702.06081 · Cited by 182
Democratizing Algorithmic Fairness
Wong, P.-H. (2020) · Philosophy & Technology · doi:10.1007/s13347-019-00355-w · Cited by 182
A Confidence-Based Approach for Balancing Fairness and Accuracy
Fish, B., Kun, J., & Lelkes, Á. D. (2016) · SIAM International Conference on Data Mining · doi:10.1137/1.9781611974348.17 · Cited by 179
Srivastava, M., Heidari, H., & Krause, A. (2019) · Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining · doi:10.1145/3292500.3330664 · Cited by 179
Mitigating Bias in Algorithmic Hiring: Evaluating Claims and Practices
Raghavan, M., Barocas, S., Kleinberg, J., & Levy, K. (2019) · arXiv · Cited by 176
The Dataset Nutrition Label: A Framework To Drive Higher Data Quality Standards
Holland, S., Hosny, A., Newman, S., Joseph, J., & Chmielinski, K. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1805.03677 · Cited by 175
iFair: Learning Individually Fair Data Representations for Algorithmic Decision Making
Lahoti, P., Gummadi, K. P., & Weikum, G. (2019) · IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) · doi:10.1109/icde.2019.00121 · Cited by 175
FairTest: Discovering Unwarranted Associations in Data-Driven Applications
Tramer, F., Atlidakis, V., Geambasu, R., Hsu, D., Hubaux, J.-P., Humbert, M., Juels, A., & Lin, H. (2017) · 2017 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS&P) · doi:10.1109/eurosp.2017.29 · Cited by 171
FairTest: Discovering Unwarranted Associations in Data-Driven Applications
Tramèr, F., Atlidakis, V., Geambasu, R., Hsu, D., Hubaux, J.-P., Humbert, M., Juels, A., & Lin, H. (2015) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1510.02377 · Cited by 171
Beyond Parity: Fairness Objectives for Collaborative Filtering
Yao, S., & Huang, B. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1705.08804 · Cited by 169
Cole, N. S. (1973) · Journal of Educational Measurement · doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.1973.tb00802.x · Cited by 168
The Social Cost of Strategic Classification
Milli, S., Miller, J. P., Dragan, A. D., & Hardt, M. (2019) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3287560.3287576 · Cited by 168
Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency
(2019) · doi:10.1145/3287560 · Cited by 165
Controlling Attribute Effect in Linear Regression
Calders, T., Karim, A., Kamiran, F., Ali, W., & Zhang, X.-L. (2013) · 2013 IEEE 13th International Conference on Data Mining · doi:10.1109/icdm.2013.114 · Cited by 162
Algorithmic realism: expanding the boundaries of algorithmic thought
Green, B., & Viljoen, S. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3351095.3372840 · Cited by 161
Fairness-Aware Tensor-Based Recommendation
Zhu, Z., Hu, X., & Caverlee, J. (2018) · ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM) · doi:10.1145/3269206.3271795 · Cited by 156
Preventing undesirable behavior of intelligent machines
Thomas, P. S., da Silva, B. C., Barto, A. G., Giguere, S., Brun, Y., & Brunskill, E. (2019) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aag3311 · Cited by 156
Blodgett, S. L., & O'Connor, B. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1707.00061 · Cited by 153
Identifying and Correcting Label Bias in Machine Learning
Jiang, H., & Nachum, O. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1901.04966 · Cited by 152
Support Vector Machines with the Ramp Loss and the Hard Margin Loss
Brooks, J. P. (2011) · Operations Research · doi:10.1287/opre.1100.0854 · Cited by 145
Interventional Fairness: Causal Database Repair for Algorithmic Fairness
Salimi, B., Rodriguez, L., Howe, B., & Suciu, D. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Management of Data · doi:10.1145/3299869.3319901 · Cited by 145
Johndrow, J. E., & Lum, K. (2019) · The Annals of Applied Statistics · doi:10.1214/18-aoas1201 · Cited by 141
Achieving Fairness through Adversarial Learning: an Application to Recidivism PredictionPreprint
Wadsworth, C., Vera, F., & Piech, C. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1807.00199 · Cited by 139
The Selective Labels Problem: Evaluating Algorithmic Predictions in the Presence of Unobservables
Lakkaraju, H., Kleinberg, J., Leskovec, J., Ludwig, J., & Mullainathan, S. (2017) · Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/3097983.3098066 · Cited by 138
Addressing age-related bias in sentiment analysis,
Diaz, M., Johnson, I., Lazar, A., Piper, A. M., & Gergle, D. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3173574.3173986 · Cited by 138 · cited 2×
“[82]), dictionary modification (e.”
The Disparate Effects of Strategic Manipulation
Hu, L. J., Immorlica, N., & Vaughan, J. W. (2019) · ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) · doi:10.1145/3287560.3287597 · Cited by 135
Learning Optimal and Fair Decision Trees for Non-Discriminative Decision-Making
Aghaei, S., Azizi, M. J., & Vayanos, P. (2019) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v33i01.33011418 · Cited by 135
Proceedings of the 17th Conference in Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence
Breese, J., & Koller, D. (2001) · Cited by 135
Fairness GAN: Generating datasets with fairness properties using a generative adversarial network
Sattigeri, P., Hoffman, S. C., Chenthamarakshan, V., & Varshney, K. R. (2019) · IBM Journal of Research and Development · doi:10.1147/jrd.2019.2945519 · Cited by 134
Does mitigating ML's impact disparity require treatment disparity?Preprint
Lipton, Z. C., Chouldechova, A., & McAuley, J. (2017) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1711.07076 · Cited by 133
Fair Regression: Quantitative Definitions and Reduction-based AlgorithmsPreprint
Agarwal, A., Dudı́k, M., & Wu, Z. S. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1905.12843 · Cited by 131
Satisfying Real-world Goals with Dataset ConstraintsPreprint
Goh, G., Cotter, A., Gupta, M. R., & Friedlander, M. P. (2016) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1606.07558 · Cited by 131
When Worlds Collide: Integrating Different Counterfactual Assumptions in Fairness
Russell, C., Kusner, M. J., Loftus, J. R., & Silva, R. (2017) · Surrey Research Insight Open Access (The University of Surrey) · doi:10.5555/3295222.3295388 · Cited by 129
Why Unbiased Computational Processes Can Lead to Discriminative Decision Procedures
Calders, T., & Žliobaitė, I. (2013) · Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-30487-3_3 · Cited by 128
Adaptive Sensitive Reweighting to Mitigate Bias in Fairness-aware Classification
Krasanakis, E., Spyromitros-Xioufis, E., Papadopoulos, S., & Kompatsiaris, Y. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference on World Wide Web - WWW '18 · doi:10.1145/3178876.3186133 · Cited by 127
CPFair: Personalized Consumer and Producer Fairness Re-ranking for Recommender Systems
Naghiaei, M., Rahmani, H. A., & Deldjoo, Y. (2022) · International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR) · doi:10.1145/3477495.3531959 · Cited by 125
A statistical framework for fair predictive algorithmsPreprint
Lum, K., & Johndrow, J. E. (2016) · arXiv.org · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1610.08077 · Cited by 124
Scalable Fair ClusteringPreprint
Bačkurs, A., Indyk, P., Onak, K., Schieber, B., Vakilian, A., & Wagner, T. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1902.03519 · Cited by 124
Policy Learning for Fairness in RankingPreprint
Singh, A., & Joachims, T. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1902.04056 · Cited by 122
Rastegarpanah, B., Gummadi, K. P., & Crovella, M. E. (2019) · ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM) · doi:10.1145/3289600.3291002 · Cited by 119
50 Years of Test (Un)fairness: Lessons for Machine LearningPreprint
Hutchinson, B., & Mitchell, M. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1811.10104 · Cited by 118
An Overview of Fairness in Clustering
Chhabra, A., Masalkovaitė, K., & Mohapatra, P. (2021) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2021.3114099 · Cited by 116
Fairness in Ranking, Part I: Score-Based Ranking
Zehlike, M., Yang, K., & Stoyanovich, J. (2022) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3533379 · Cited by 116
The Tyranny of Data? The Bright and Dark Sides of Data-Driven Decision-Making for Social Good
Lepri, B., Staiano, J., Sangokoya, D., Letouzé, E., & Oliver, N. (2017) · Studies in Big Data · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-54024-5_1 · Cited by 111
Putting Fairness Principles into Practice: Challenges, Metrics, and Improvements
Beutel, A., Chen, J., Doshi, T., Qian, H., Woodruff, A., Luu, C., Kreitmann, P., Bischof, J., & Chi, E. H. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society · doi:10.1145/3306618.3314234 · Cited by 111
Simple Rules for Complex DecisionsPreprint
Jung, J., Concannon, C., Shroff, R., Goel, S., & Goldstein, D. G. (2017) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2919024 · Cited by 110
Ekstrand, M. D., Tian, M., Azpiazu, I. M., Ekstrand, J. D., Anuyah, O., McNeill, D., & Pera, M. S. (2018) · Cited by 110
Exploring author gender in book rating and recommendation
Ekstrand, M. D., Tian, M., Kazi, M. I. R., Mehrpouyan, H., & Kluver, D. (2018) · ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys) · doi:10.1145/3240323.3240373 · Cited by 110
Racial categories in machine learning
Benthall, S., & Haynes, B. D. (2019) · Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3287560.3287575 · Cited by 110
Mitigating Gender Bias in Natural Language Processing: Literature ReviewPreprint
Sun, T., Gaut, A., Tang, S., Huang, Y., ElSherief, M., Zhao, J., Mirza, D., Belding, E., Chang, K.-W., & Wang, W. Y. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1906.08976 · Cited by 109
Fairness in Ranking, Part II: Learning-to-Rank and Recommender Systems
Zehlike, M., Yang, K., & Stoyanovich, J. (2022) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3533380 · Cited by 105
Balanced Neighborhoods for Multi-sided Fairness in Recommendation
Burke, R., Sonboli, N., & Ordonez-Gauger, A. (2018) · Cited by 102
A peek into the black box: exploring classifiers by randomization
Henelius, A., Puolamäki, K., Boström, H., Asker, L., & Papapetrou, P. (2014) · Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery · doi:10.1007/s10618-014-0368-8 · Cited by 98
Flagged first, then by citations
6 of the 366 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 21
- Sara Ahmadian, Alessandro Epasto, Ravi Kumar, and Mohammad Mahdian. 2020. Fair correlation clustering. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. PMLR, 4195–4205.
- Julia Angwin, Jeff Larson, Surya Mattu, and Lauren Kirchner. 2016. Machine bias. ProPublica May 23 (2016).
- Solon Barocas, Moritz Hardt, and Arvind Narayanan. 2019. Fairness and Machine Learning. fairmlbook.org.
- Suman Bera, Deeparnab Chakrabarty, Nicolas Flores, and Maryam Negahbani. 2019. Fair algorithms for clustering. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 32. Curran Associates, Inc., 4954–4965.
- Amanda Bower, Sarah N. Kitchen, Laura Niss, Martin J. Strauss, Alexander Vargas, and Suresh Venkatasubramanian. 2017. Fair pipelines. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.00391 (2017). · arXiv
- Danah Boyd and Kate Crawford. 2011. Six provocations for big data. In A Decade in Internet Time: Symposium on the Dynamics of the Internet and Society, Vol. 21. Oxford Internet Institute Oxford, UK.
- R. Wirth and J. Hipp. 2000. CRISP-DM: Towards a standard process model for data mining. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on the Practical Applications of Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining Vol. 1 29–39.
- Anshuman Chhabra, Adish Singla, and Prasant Mohapatra. 2022. Fair clustering using antidote data. In Proceedings of the Algorithmic Fairness through the Lens of Causality and Robustness Workshop. PMLR, 19–39.
- 10.2759/177365 · DOI
- Bo Cowgill and Catherine Tucker. 2017. Algorithmic bias: A counterfactual perspective. NSF Trustwor. Algor. (2017).
- Michele Donini, Luca Oneto, Shai Ben-David, John S. Shawe-Taylor, and Massimiliano Pontil. 2018. Empirical risk minimization under fairness constraints. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. Curran Associates, Inc., 2791–2801.
- Bo Gao. 2015. Exploratory Visualization Design towards Online Social Network Privacy and Data Literacy. Ph.D. Dissertation. KU Leuven.
- Bryce W. Goodman. 2016. Economic models of (algorithmic) discrimination. In Proceedings of the 29th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 6.
- Toshihiro Kamishima, Shotaro Akaho, Hideki Asoh, and Jun Sakuma. 2018. Recommendation independence. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency. PMLR, 187–201.
- Lydia T. Liu, Sarah Dean, Esther Rolf, Max Simchowitz, and Moritz Hardt. 2018. Delayed impact of fair machine learning. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 3150–3158.
- Bruce McKeown and Dan B. Thomas. 2013. Q methodology. Quantit. Applic. Soc. Sci. 66 (2013).
- 10.5555/1462129 · DOI
- Hao Wang, Berk Ustun, and Flavio P. Calmon. 2018. Avoiding disparate impact with counterfactual distributions. In Proceedings of the NeurIPS Workshop on Ethical, Social and Governance Issues in AI.
- Lequn Wang, Yiwei Bai, Wen Sun, and Thorsten Joachims. 2021. Fairness of exposure in stochastic bandits. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 10686–10696.
- Lauren Weber and Elizabeth Dwoskin. 2014. Are workplace personality tests fair. Wall Street J. 29 (2014).
- 10.5555/3367032.3367238 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Baker, R. S., & Hawn, A. (2022) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.1007/s40593-021-00285-9 · Cited by 993
Algorithmic fairness in artificial intelligence for medicine and healthcare
Chen, R. J., Wang, J. J., Williamson, D. F. K., Chen, T. Y., Lipkova, J., Lu, M. Y., Sahai, S., & Mahmood, F. (2023) · Nature Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1038/s41551-023-01056-8 · Cited by 750
Trustworthy AI: From Principles to Practices
Li, B., Qi, P., Liu, B., Di, S., Liu, J., Pei, J., Yi, J., & Zhou, B. (2023) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3555803 · Cited by 612
An Overview of Artificial Intelligence Ethics
Huang, C., Zhang, Z., Mao, B., & Yao, X. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tai.2022.3194503 · Cited by 649
Li, J., Chen, J., Tang, Y., Wang, C., Landman, B. A., & Zhou, S. K. (2023) · Medical Image Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.media.2023.102762 · Cited by 454
Metadata
- Authors
- Caton, S., & Haas, C.
- Affiliations
- University College Dublin (IE)
- Vienna University of Economics and Business (AT)
- Venue
- ACM Computing Surveys
- Published
- 2024-04-09
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1-38
- ISSN
- 0360-0300 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7341
- OpenAlex
- W3092541244
- Semantic Scholar
- fee8f63972906214b77f16cfeca0b93ee8f36ba2
- Cited by
- 646
- References
- 366
- Citations by year
- 2026: 140 · 2025: 205 · 2024: 145
- FWCI
- 137.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- ACM Computing Surveys (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
- Keywords
- algorithmic fairness, algorithmic bias, post-processing, demographic parity, equal opportunities
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review