Demographic Benchmarking: Bridging Socio-Technical Gaps in Bias Detection

Gemma Galdon Clavell; Paola Vazquez; Rub\'en Gonz\'alez-Sendino

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 34 references

Demographic Benchmarking: Bridging Socio-Technical Gaps in Bias Detection

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper establishes demographic benchmarking as an audit method that detects sampling, deployment, and structural bias by comparing a model's observed population with an external census-derived reference, without needing the training set.

desk verdict A plausible framing for external demographic benchmarks in AI audits, but the paper's own case study never computes the metrics and the structural-bias concept is circular. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.15985 v1 pith:Q6DB5QA7 submitted 2025-01-27 cs.CY

Gemma Galdon Clavell , Rubén González-Sendino , Paola Vazquez This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CY

keywords ResponsibleAIfairnessbiasdetectionsocio-technicaldemographicbenchmarkingalgorithmicauditinglifecycleLocalLaw144

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that AI bias auditing has a blind spot: standard bias metrics compare groups only within the data the model already has, so if the training data is skewed, the audit inherits the skew. To close that gap, the authors propose demographic benchmarking: using an external, census-derived reference for who should be in the population affected by a model, then measuring how far the model's training data and live production data diverge from that reference. The central claim, tested on hiring tools covered by New York City Local Law 144, is that this external comparison can reveal sampling bias, deployment bias, and a newly named 'structural bias' without access to the original training set. If the framework works as described, auditors gain a bias signal that does not depend on true labels or on trusting the training distribution, and regulators get a quantitative population-representation target to write into law.

What carries the argument

The core machinery is the Demographic Benchmarking Framework and its disparity metrics. Demographic disparity (DD) is the difference between an expected proportion $P_i$ (from the external benchmark) and the actual proportion $R_i$ observed in a dataset for demographic group $i$; total demographic disparity (TDD) sums the absolute group discrepancies, and normalized demographic disparity (NDD) divides each discrepancy by its expected proportion before averaging. Two further metrics, DDP, TDDP, and NDDP, measure the same quantities using only the group shares of positive decisions $P_i(D=1)$, which lets auditors monitor whether a model's favourable outputs follow the expected distribution without needing true labels in production. The framework assigns these metrics to two lifecycle moments—training (to catch sampling bias) and production (to catch deployment bias)—and the residual mismatch that persists even when the benchmark is adjusted is labelled structural bias.

What would settle it

Run the framework on a deployment where the true ground-truth applicant pool is known, such as a hiring tool with internal records of all applicants. If a model whose applicant pool exactly matches the census benchmark still produces outcomes that Local Law 144-style disparate-impact tests flag as discriminatory, or a model whose pool differs widely from the benchmark still produces individually fair decisions, then the demographic disparity measures are not, by themselves, evidence of bias. Repeating the test with actual city-level location data would also settle whether the US-wide benchmark is a valid substitute for New York City.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that demographic benchmarking—comparing a model's observed population (in training or production) against an externally defined expected demographic distribution—is a valid and useful way to assess model behaviour and performance even when the original training set is unavailable. In the New York hiring case, the authors build a benchmark from U.S. Census 2020 data restricted to the active workforce (ages 16 and older), compare the candidate pools and positive-outcome groups of three automated employment decision tools to that benchmark, and show that each tool deviates from the reference in distinct ways. They interpret those deviations as evidence of sampling, deployment, or structural bias, and they argue the same external reference can be used during training to build balanced datasets and after deployment as a continuous drift monitor.

Load-bearing premise

The framework assumes that the census-derived demographic distribution is the correct normative reference for a fair model, and in the New York case that US-wide proportions can stand in for New York City's population, so if either the benchmark population differs from the true intended applicant pool or the location proxy misrepresents it, the measured disparities do not reliably indicate bias.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Auditors can detect bias in models whose training data is proprietary or sealed, because the comparison is against census data rather than against the training set.
Developers can use the benchmark as a dataset-construction target, building training sets whose demographic mix matches the intended real-world population.
Regulators can set explicit, quantitative representation thresholds, such as requiring a production candidate pool to fall within a stated NDD of a local census benchmark, instead of relying on vague data-quality requirements.
Post-deployment monitoring can flag drift when the live user or candidate population moves away from the benchmark, even when no ground-truth labels exist.
The framework gives policymakers a way to see structural bias—cases where the benchmark itself reveals that society's distribution is unequal—and to target equity interventions at the groups most underrepresented.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Editorial inference: the paper gives equations for demographic disparity but does not specify a procedure for choosing the acceptable ranges for TDD or NDD; a natural extension is to derive those ranges from the variance of the census estimates or from regulatory fairness thresholds.
Editorial inference: the NYC example substitutes US-wide census proportions for New York City population because the audit reports lack location data, so the measured 'deployment bias' could partly be a location mismatch; re-running the same audit on data with city-level or borough-level location tags would separate benchmark error from true deployment bias.
Editorial inference: because benchmarks are built from historical census data, they can encode residential or occupational segregation; a testable extension is to compare NDD against benchmarks built from a qualified-applicant pool (e.g., people with the required credentials) rather than the resident population, which would show whether census-resident proportions are the right fairness reference

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

Read this one as a position statement from an auditing company, not as a validated method. The useful idea: when auditing a deployed model, compare the distribution of people affected by it to an external demographic reference rather than to the training data, which may itself be biased. That framing—separating sampling, deployment, and structural bias—is genuinely helpful for practitioners working under NYC LL144 or the EU AI Act, where training data is often unavailable.

The paper does some things well. It grounds the framework in concrete regulation, it is honest about the limitations of its own case study (it admits the NYC-US benchmark mismatch), and the formulas in Eqs. 8-13 are simple enough for auditors to implement without a research team. The positive-decision variants (DDP/TDDP/NDDP) are a small but useful extension that ties representation to model outputs rather than just inputs.

The soft spots are substantial, though. The biggest is that the Section 5 use case never computes a single one of the proposed metrics. The authors list percentages and then say things like 'ADP exhibits a notable deviation in the Black category,' but they don't calculate DD, TDD, or NDD for any of the three tools. The central claim that demographic benchmarking 'proves valuable' is therefore an assertion, not a demonstration. Second, the benchmark is shifted from New York City to the entire US because candidate location is unknown. Census active-workforce percentages for the US are not the applicant pool for a hiring platform; they are shaped by job types, advertising channels, and self-selection. A deviation from census is not, by itself, evidence of algorithmic bias. The paper acknowledges this, but then still interprets deviations as notable, which undercuts its own caution. Third, 'structural bias' is defined in Figure 1 as the case where the benchmark itself needs adaptation—that is circular, and the prose definition ('population lacks the necessary variability') isn't operationalized. Finally, the fairness thresholds (-0.1 to 0.1, 0.8 to 1.2) are asserted without justification.

None of this makes the paper worthless. It is a clear, honest statement of a practical auditing approach and a direct response to a regulatory gap. It just doesn't yet show that the approach works.

I'd send it to a serious referee: the framework is testable, the regulatory relevance is real, and a revision that actually computes the metrics on the NY data, fixes the benchmark population, and defines structural bias non-circularly could turn this into a useful paper. For a reading group it's a decent 'what does an audit actually need?' discussion piece, though not a technical result.

Recommendation: engage with it as a proposal, but don't accept it as evidence until the metrics are actually run.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a Demographic Benchmarking Framework for auditing AI recommender systems. The framework defines a set of demographic disparity metrics (Eqs. 8-13) that compare an expected demographic distribution, derived from external census data, against the actual distribution in training data and in production data. The intended outputs are three bias indicators: sampling bias (training-phase mismatch), deployment bias (production-phase mismatch), and structural bias (situations where the benchmark itself requires adaptation). The paper reports a use case based on three automated employment decision tools (ADP, RippleMatch, Sheppard Mullin) audited under New York City Local Law 144, comparing their candidate and positive-outcome demographic distributions to U.S. census proportions. It then discusses the benefits of the framework for developers, policymakers, and auditors. The central claim, stated in Section 7, is that demographic benchmarking 'proves valuable' for assessing model behavior without access to the original training set.

Significance. The topic is timely and practically important: auditors often lack access to training data, and post-market monitoring of deployed systems is a recognized gap. The proposed metrics are simple and transparent, and they could, in principle, be used by auditors and regulators. The use case is grounded in public audit reports under a real regulatory framework (NYC Local Law 144), which gives the paper a concrete empirical anchor. However, as presented, the central claim is not demonstrated: Section 5 presents only qualitative comparisons and never computes the proposed metrics, and the benchmark population (U.S. active workforce) does not match the intended applicant pool for the audited systems. The concept of structural bias is also defined in a circular manner in Figure 1 and is not operationalized with any measurable quantity. If these issues were addressed, the framework could become a useful contribution to the fairness-auditing literature; in its current form, it reads more as a position statement than as a validated methodology.

major comments (4)

[Section 5, Table 2] The paper never computes any of the proposed metrics (Eqs. 8-13) on the data it presents. The qualitative observation that 'ADP exhibits a notable deviation in the Black category' is not supported by DD, TDD, NDD, or the positive-decision variants, nor is it compared to any acceptability threshold. Without these calculations, the claim in Section 7 that demographic benchmarking 'proves valuable' is asserted rather than demonstrated. Please compute and report the metrics on the Table 2 data, or explicitly reframe the use case as an illustrative workflow rather than an empirical validation.
[Section 5, Table 1 and text] The use case compares NYC AEDT audit data to U.S. census proportions, despite Local Law 144 being specific to New York City. The paper acknowledges the mismatch ('opaque audits regarding candidates' location data required us to compare results against the broader U.S. population distribution') but then interprets deviations from the U.S. benchmark as potentially indicative of bias. The applicant pool for these platforms is not the entire U.S. active workforce; it is shaped by job types, advertising channels, eligibility criteria, and self-selection. A deviation from U.S. census proportions is therefore not reliable evidence of algorithmic bias. The paper should either use a more appropriate benchmark, such as the NYC active workforce, or explicitly state that the results are not evidence of bias but only a demonstration of the framework's workflow.
[Section 4, Figure 1] The concept of 'structural bias' is not operationalized. In Figure 1, structural bias is identified when the benchmark itself 'need[s] adaptation,' which is self-referential: it labels a situation as structural bias precisely when the framework's own reference distribution is judged inadequate. Section 7 describes structural bias as capturing 'the extent to which society may be inherently unfair,' but no metric, equation, or decision rule is provided for it. Please define structural bias in terms of measurable quantities (for example, through a specific pattern in the Eqs. 8-13 metrics or through a separate indicator) and explain how an auditor would distinguish structural bias from deployment bias or from an incorrect benchmark.
[Section 4, Eqs. 11-13] The definition of the positive-decision benchmark P_i(D=1) in Eqs. 11-13 is unclear. The text states that 'D represents the true label in training and the model's output in production,' but the equations use P_i(D=1) as an expected proportion of positive decisions for group i, while R_i is the actual proportion in the dataset. It is not explained how P_i(D=1) is derived from external census data or what assumptions support it, since census demographics alone do not determine an expected positive-decision rate. Please clarify the source and meaning of P_i(D=1), as the interpretability of all positive-decision metrics depends on this definition.

minor comments (5)

[Section 4, Eq. 10 surrounding text] The phrase 'NDD provides a more slight view' appears to be a typo; it likely should read 'a more balanced view' or 'a more nuanced view.'
[Table 1, note] The table note says 'All race categories presented exclude individuals identifying as Hispanic or Latino (nor Hispanic or Latino).' The parenthetical should read 'or Hispanic or Latino.' Additionally, the NYC and US percentage columns do not sum to 100, which should be acknowledged as rounding or stated explicitly.
[Section 5, Table 2] The 'Some Other Race' category is omitted from Table 2 because it is 'not required by law,' but the table rows then do not sum to 100% for any of the three tools. Please state this explicitly in the text or include the category in the table so readers can reconcile the totals.
[Table 2, header] The column headers in Table 2 ('ADPPositive % ADP') are unclear; format the headers consistently, for example 'ADP: Total %' and 'ADP: Positive %'.
[References] Reference [16] lists the year as '9998' and contains an 'In press' date of 11/2023; please correct the citation metadata. Also, the ACM reference format on the first page states '2018,' which is inconsistent with the 2025 arXiv date.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Main census-vs-production comparison is externally grounded, but the structural-bias branch of the framework is self-definitional.

self definitional [Section 4, Figure 1 flowchart; cf. Section 1 structural-bias definition]
"Demographic Disparity Training Data Sampling Bias Demographic Benchmarking Demographic Disparity Production Data Deployment Bias YES NO Benchmarking need adaptation? Structural Bias"

In the framework's own flowchart, 'Structural Bias' is simply the label attached to the 'YES' output of the 'Benchmarking need adaptation?' decision node. No independent measurement is proposed for structural bias; the framework infers it exactly when the auditor decides the reference population is inappropriate for the context. After such an adaptation, Demographic Disparity (Eq. 8) becomes zero by construction, so the framework's structural-bias finding is equivalent to the auditor's prior judgment restated as an output, rather than a quantity derived from the data.

full rationale

The paper's core demographic benchmarking comparison is not circular. The expected proportions P_i in Eqs. 8-13 are taken from U.S. Census Bureau active-workforce tables, while the actual proportions R_i come from public LL144 audit reports of AEDTs. Neither side is fitted to the other, and no parameter of the framework is estimated from the target outcome it is used to assess. The central claim about auditing without the training set therefore has external content, although its strength is limited by the Section 5 substitution of U.S.-wide proportions for the NYC population and by the absence of any computed values of Eqs. 8-13; those are evidence limitations, not circularity. The only self-definitional element is the structural-bias branch in Figure 1, where the conclusion is the auditor's decision to adapt the benchmark restated as a measured finding. The one self-citation, Ref. [16] by a co-author, is used for background taxonomy definitions and is not load-bearing. Overall circularity is minor: score 2.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on an external census benchmark (domain assumption), on the accuracy of public audit reports, and on a self-referential definition of structural bias. There are no fitted parameters in the proposed disparity metrics themselves, though the acceptability thresholds for standard fairness metrics are arbitrary.

free parameters (1)

Fairness acceptability thresholds = EOD, OD, SPD between -0.1 and 0.1; DI between 0.8 and 1.2
Chosen by hand in Section 2.2 as acceptable ranges for standard fairness metrics. They are not fitted to data, but they are arbitrary and not derived from the framework itself.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Census data provides a valid normative benchmark for demographic fairness.
The framework relies on census proportions as the 'expected' distribution (Section 4, Table 1). This assumes census categories and counts are the correct reference for assessing fairness.
domain assumption Public audit reports under NYC Local Law 144 contain accurate demographic data on candidates and positive decisions.
Section 5 uses aggregate percentages from ACLU-published audits without verifying their construction or completeness.
ad hoc to paper Structural bias is operationally defined as the case where the demographic benchmark itself requires adaptation.
Figure 1 and Section 7 describe structural bias as when benchmarking needs adaptation, but no independent measurement procedure is provided.

invented entities (1)

Structural Bias
purpose: A new bias type claimed to capture societal structural inequalities that persist in benchmarks.
The paper introduces 'Structural Bias' (Section 2.1) but defines it only through the framework's own need for adaptation, with no independent falsifiable handle.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Demographic Benchmarking: Bridging Socio-Technical Gaps in Bias Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q6DB5QA7

@misc{pith2026250115985,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Demographic Benchmarking: Bridging Socio-Technical Gaps in Bias Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q6DB5QA7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.15985}
}

read the original abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) models are increasingly autonomous in decision-making, making pursuing responsible AI more critical than ever. Responsible AI (RAI) is defined by its commitment to transparency, privacy, safety, inclusiveness, and fairness. But while the principles of RAI are clear and shared, RAI practices and auditing mechanisms are still incipient. A key challenge is establishing metrics and benchmarks that define performance goals aligned with RAI principles. This paper describes how the ITACA AI auditing platform developed by Eticas.ai tackles demographic benchmarking when auditing AI recommender systems. To this end, we describe a Demographic Benchmarking Framework designed to measure the populations potentially impacted by specific AI models. The framework serves us as auditors as it allows us to not just measure but establish acceptability ranges for specific performance indicators, which we share with the developers of the systems we audit so they can build balanced training datasets and measure and monitor fairness throughout the AI lifecycle. It is also a valuable resource for policymakers in drafting effective and enforceable regulations. Our approach integrates socio-demographic insights directly into AI systems, reducing bias and improving overall performance. The main contributions of this study include:1. Defining control datasets tailored to specific demographics so they can be used in model training; 2. Comparing the overall population with those impacted by the deployed model to identify discrepancies and account for structural bias; and 3. Quantifying drift in different scenarios continuously and as a post-market monitoring mechanism.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

[1]

Saad Ahmed, Saif Ali Athyaab, and Shaik Abdul Muqtadeer. 2021. Attenuation of Human Bias in Artificial Intelligence: An Exploratory Approach. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Inventive Computation Technologies, ICICT 2021 (1 2021), 557–563. https://doi.org/10.1109/ ICICT50816.2021.9358507 2025-01-28 02:30. Page 11 of 1–13. Manuscript sub...

arXiv 2021
[2]

Akintande

Olalekan J. Akintande. 2021. Algorithm Fairness Through Data Inclusion, Participation, and Reciprocity. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) 12683 LNCS, 633–637. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73200- 4_50

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-73200- 2021
[3]

Mohammad Arif Ul Alam. 2020. AI-fairness towards activity recognition of older adults. PervasiveHealth: Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare (12 2020), 108–117. https://doi.org/10.1145/3448891.3448943

work page arXiv 2020
[4]

Alejandro Barredo Arrieta, Natalia Díaz Rodríguez, Javier Del Ser, Adrien Bennetot, Siham Tabik, Alberto Barbado, Salvador García, Sergio Gil-Lopez, Daniel Molina, Richard Benjamins, Raja Chatila, and Francisco Herrera. 2020. Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI. Inf. Fusion 58...

doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2019.12.012 2020
[5]

Badal, Camille Nebeker, Kaoru Shinkawa, Yasunori Yamada, Kelly E

Varsha D. Badal, Camille Nebeker, Kaoru Shinkawa, Yasunori Yamada, Kelly E. Rentscher, Ho-Cheol Kim, and Ellen E. Lee. 2021. Do Words Matter? Detecting Social Isolation and Loneliness in Older Adults Using Natural Language Processing. Frontiers in Psychiatry 12 (11 2021). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.728732

work page arXiv 2021
[6]

Baker and Aaron Hawn

Ryan S. Baker and Aaron Hawn. 2021. Algorithmic Bias in Education. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education (2021). https: //doi.org/10.1007/s40593-021-00285-9

doi:10.1007/s40593-021-00285-9 2021
[7]

Solon Barocas and Andrew D. Selbst. 2016. Big Data’s Disparate Impact. California Law Review 104 (2016), 671. https://api.semanticscholar.org/ CorpusID:143133374

work page 2016
[8]

Rachel K. E. Bellamy, Kuntal Dey, Michael Hind, Samuel C. Hoffman, Stephanie Houde, Kalapriya Kannan, Pranay Lohia, Jacquelyn Martino, Sameep Mehta, Aleksandra Mojsilovic, Seema Nagar, Karthikeyan Natesan Ramamurthy, John T. Richards, Diptikalyan Saha, Prasanna Sattigeri, Moninder Singh, Kush R. Varshney, and Yunfeng Zhang. 2018. AI Fairness 360: An Exten...

arXiv 2018

Show all 34 references

[9]

Joy Buolamwini and Timnit Gebru. 2018. Gender Shades: Intersectional Accuracy Disparities in Commercial Gender Classification. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 81) , Sorelle A. Fri...

2018
[10]

Alexandra Chouldechova and Aaron Roth. 2020. A snapshot of the frontiers of fairness in machine learning. Commun. ACM 63, 5 (April 2020), 82–89. https://doi.org/10.1145/3376898

2020 doi
[11]

Geoffrey Currie and K Elizabeth Hawk. 2021. Ethical and Legal Challenges of Artificial Intelligence in Nuclear Medicine. Seminars in Nuclear Medicine 51 (2021), 120–125. Issue 2. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2020.08.001

2021 doi
[12]

Daniela America da Silva, Henrique Duarte Borges Louro, Gildarcio Sousa Goncalves, Johnny Cardoso Marques, Luiz Alberto Vieira Dias, Adil- son Marques da Cunha, and Paulo Marcelo Tasinaffo. 2021. Could a conversational ai identify offensive language?†. Information (Switzerland...

2021 doi
[13]

Matthew DeCamp and Charlotta Lindvall. 2020. Latent bias and the implementation of artificial intelligence in medicine. 2020-2023 pages. Issue 12. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocaa094

2020 doi
[14]

European Commission. 2021. EU AI Act. https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/european-approach-artificial-intelligence. Accessed: 2025-01-21

2021
[15]

Richard Ribón Fletcher, Audace Nakeshimana, and Olusubomi Olubeko. 2021. Addressing Fairness, Bias, and Appropriate Use of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Global Health. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 3 (4 2021). https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2020.561802

2021
[16]

Rubén González-Sendino, Emilio Serrano, Javier Bajo, and Paulo Novais. 9998. A Review of Bias and Fairness in Artificial Intelligence. International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence In press, In press (11/2023 9998), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.9781/i...

2023 doi
[17]

Sara Hajian, Francesco Bonchi, and Carlos Castillo. 2016. Algorithmic bias: From discrimination discovery to fairness-aware data mining.Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining 13-17-August-2016, 2125–2126. https://doi.org/1...

2016
[18]

Christopher Harris. 2020. Mitigating Cognitive Biases in Machine Learning Algorithms for Decision Making. The Web Conference 2020 - Companion of the World Wide Web Conference, WWW 2020 (4 2020), 775–781. https://doi.org/10.1145/3366424.3383562

2020
[19]

Kenneth Holstein, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, Hal Daumé, Miro Dudik, and Hanna Wallach. 2019. Improving Fairness in Machine Learning Systems: What Do Industry Practitioners Need?. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’19) . ACM, 1–...

2019
[20]

Yangyang Hou, Huajie Hong, Zhaomei Sun, Dasheng Xu, and Zhe Zeng. 2021. The control method of twin delayed deep deterministic policy gradient with rebirth mechanism to multi-dof manipulator. Electronics (Switzerland) 10 (4 2021). Issue 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics10070870

2021 doi
[21]

Sami Khenissi, Boujelbene Mariem, and Olfa Nasraoui. 2020. Theoretical Modeling of the Iterative Properties of User Discovery in a Collaborative Filtering Recommender System. RecSys 2020 - 14th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems , 348–357. https://doi.org/10.1145/3383313.3412260

2020
[23]

Ninareh Mehrabi, Fred Morstatter, Nripsuta Saxena, Kristina Lerman, and Aram Galstyan. 2021. A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learning. ACM Comput. Surv. 54, 6, Article 115 (July 2021), 35 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3457607

2021 doi
[24]

Monique Munarini, James Brusseau, and Lorenzo Angeli. 2024. Equitable AI Audits: evaluating the evaluators in today’s world. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (ICEGOV ’24) . Association for Computing Machinery, ...

2024
[25]

Akshat Pandey and Aylin Caliskan. 2021. Disparate Impact of Artificial Intelligence Bias in Ridehailing Economy’s Price Discrimination Algorithms. AIES 2021 - Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society , 822–833. https://doi.org/10.1145/3461702.3462561

2021
[26]

Dana Pessach and Erez Shmueli. 2022. A Review on Fairness in Machine Learning. ACM Comput. Surv. 55, 3, Article 51 (feb 2022), 44 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3494672

2022 doi
[28]

White, Margaret Mitchell, Timnit Gebru, Ben Hutchinson, Jamila Smith-Loud, Daniel Theron, and Parker Barnes

Inioluwa Deborah Raji, Andrew Smart, Rebecca N. White, Margaret Mitchell, Timnit Gebru, Ben Hutchinson, Jamila Smith-Loud, Daniel Theron, and Parker Barnes. 2020. Closing the AI accountability gap: defining an end-to-end framework for internal algorithmic auditing. In Proceedi...

2020
[29]

Rodolfa, and Rayid Ghani

Pedro Saleiro, Benedict Kuester, Loren Hinkson, Jesse London, Abby Stevens, Ari Anisfeld, Kit T. Rodolfa, and Rayid Ghani. 2018. Aequitas: A Bias and Fairness Audit Toolkit. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.1811.05577

2018 doi arXiv
[30]

Varshney

Shubham Sharma, Yunfeng Zhang, Jes’s M.R.os Aliaga, Djallel Bouneffouf, Vinod Muthusamy, and Kush R. Varshney. 2020. Data augmentation for discrimination prevention and bias disambiguation. AIES 2020 - Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (2 2020),...

2020
[31]

David Solans, Francesco Fabbri, Caterina Calsamiglia, Carlos Castillo, and Francesco Bonchi. 2021. Comparing Equity and Effectiveness of Different Algorithms in an Application for the Room Rental Market. AIES 2021 - Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, an...

2021
[32]

Alexander Stevens, Peter Deruyck, Ziboud Van Veldhoven, and Jan Vanthienen. 2020. Explainability and Fairness in Machine Learning: Improve Fair End-to-end Lending for Kiva. 2020 IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence, SSCI 2020 (12 2020), 1241–1248. https://doi.or...

2020
[33]

Velimir V Vesselinov, Boian S Alexandrov, and Daniel O’Malley. 2019. Nonnegative tensor factorization for contaminant source identification. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 220 (2019), 66–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconhyd.2018.11.010

2019 doi
[34]

Yinying Wang. 2021. When artificial intelligence meets educational leaders’ data-informed decision-making: A cautionary tale.Studies in Educational Evaluation 69 (2021), 100872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100872

2021
[35]

Yi Zhang and Jitao Sang. 2020. Towards Accuracy-Fairness Paradox: Adversarial Example-based Data Augmentation for Visual Debiasing. In MM ’20: The 28th ACM International Conference on Multimedia, Virtual Event / Seattle, W A, USA, October 12-16, 2020 , Chang Wen Chen, Rita Cuc...

2020
[36]

Yunhan Zheng, Shenhao Wang, and Jinhua Zhao. 2021. Equality of opportunity in travel behavior prediction with deep neural networks and discrete choice models. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 132 (2021), 103410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2021.103410 20...

2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Saad Ahmed, Saif Ali Athyaab, and Shaik Abdul Muqtadeer. 2021. Attenuation of Human Bias in Artificial Intelligence: An Exploratory Approach. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Inventive Computation Technologies, ICICT 2021 (1 2021), 557–563. https://doi.org/10.1109/ ICICT50816.2021.9358507 2025-01-28 02:30. Page 11 of 1–13. Manuscript sub...

arXiv 2021

[2] [2]

Akintande

Olalekan J. Akintande. 2021. Algorithm Fairness Through Data Inclusion, Participation, and Reciprocity. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics) 12683 LNCS, 633–637. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-73200- 4_50

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-73200- 2021

[3] [3]

Mohammad Arif Ul Alam. 2020. AI-fairness towards activity recognition of older adults. PervasiveHealth: Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare (12 2020), 108–117. https://doi.org/10.1145/3448891.3448943

work page arXiv 2020

[4] [4]

Alejandro Barredo Arrieta, Natalia Díaz Rodríguez, Javier Del Ser, Adrien Bennetot, Siham Tabik, Alberto Barbado, Salvador García, Sergio Gil-Lopez, Daniel Molina, Richard Benjamins, Raja Chatila, and Francisco Herrera. 2020. Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible AI. Inf. Fusion 58...

doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2019.12.012 2020

[5] [5]

Badal, Camille Nebeker, Kaoru Shinkawa, Yasunori Yamada, Kelly E

Varsha D. Badal, Camille Nebeker, Kaoru Shinkawa, Yasunori Yamada, Kelly E. Rentscher, Ho-Cheol Kim, and Ellen E. Lee. 2021. Do Words Matter? Detecting Social Isolation and Loneliness in Older Adults Using Natural Language Processing. Frontiers in Psychiatry 12 (11 2021). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.728732

work page arXiv 2021

[6] [6]

Baker and Aaron Hawn

Ryan S. Baker and Aaron Hawn. 2021. Algorithmic Bias in Education. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education (2021). https: //doi.org/10.1007/s40593-021-00285-9

doi:10.1007/s40593-021-00285-9 2021

[7] [7]

Solon Barocas and Andrew D. Selbst. 2016. Big Data’s Disparate Impact. California Law Review 104 (2016), 671. https://api.semanticscholar.org/ CorpusID:143133374

work page 2016

[8] [8]

Rachel K. E. Bellamy, Kuntal Dey, Michael Hind, Samuel C. Hoffman, Stephanie Houde, Kalapriya Kannan, Pranay Lohia, Jacquelyn Martino, Sameep Mehta, Aleksandra Mojsilovic, Seema Nagar, Karthikeyan Natesan Ramamurthy, John T. Richards, Diptikalyan Saha, Prasanna Sattigeri, Moninder Singh, Kush R. Varshney, and Yunfeng Zhang. 2018. AI Fairness 360: An Exten...

arXiv 2018