Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 71 references

Testing Individual Fairness in Graph Neural Networks

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims individual fairness testing for GNNs must use structure-preserving test generation and layer-wise neuron coverage, because message passing makes isolated feature perturbations miss how bias propagates through the graph.

desk verdict A clearly written PhD research plan that overstates its gap claim and leaves the naturalness of its proposed test cases unresolved; worth a desk read, not a results paper. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.18353 v1 pith:352HU6VS submitted 2025-04-25 cs.LG cs.AI

Roya Nasiri This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AI
keywords individualfairnessgraphneuralnetworkstestingdiscriminatoryinstancesstructure-preservingperturbationsneuroncoveragetestadequacybiasmitigation
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 PhD project paper proposes a testing framework for individual fairness in graph neural networks (GNNs), an area where existing fairness tests for independent data do not apply. The author argues that GNN predictions are shaped by neighborhood aggregation, so a fair test must create individual discriminatory instances by changing only the sensitive attribute of a node while preserving its degree and neighborhood structure. It also introduces layer-wise fairness neuron coverage as a test adequacy criterion, letting test suites be judged by how much of the fairness-relevant network they exercise. Alongside the framework, the project contributes a taxonomy of individual fairness definitions, metrics, testing methods, and mitigation strategies from a systematic literature review. If the plan succeeds, practitioners would gain a concrete way to detect and mitigate cases where a single node's protected attribute changes its outcome, including in graph-based LLM applications.

What carries the argument

The central objects are individual discriminatory instances (IDIs), defined as inputs where changing only a protected attribute flips the model's prediction, together with structure-preserving perturbations that keep node degree and neighborhood consistency so the generated graph instances remain natural. Around these, the framework builds four more components: a test oracle such as statistical parity difference to decide whether a violation occurred, a retraining step to mitigate found violations, and a layer-wise fairness neuron coverage metric to judge whether a test suite has exercised fairness-relevant parts of the network. The structural constraint is what distinguishes the technique from IID fairness test generation, which perturbs feature vectors in isolation and cannot capture GNN message-passing behavior.

What would settle it

Run the proposed generator on a trained GNN over a dataset with strong same-group clustering: if flipping a node's sensitive attribute with degree and neighborhood held fixed changes no predictions across a large sample of nodes, the framework's central generation mechanism fails on that setting.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that fairness testing for GNNs has to be topology-aware: because predictions spread through message passing, a test input cannot be judged in isolation. The proposed fix is a GNN-specific testing pipeline: generate individual discriminatory instances (IDIs) by flipping only a node's protected attribute while preserving its degree and neighborhood distribution; use test oracles such as statistical parity difference to flag violations; and measure test completeness with a new layer-wise fairness neuron coverage criterion. The author argues these techniques can be adapted from existing approaches such as gradient-guided adversarial sampling and GAN-based instance generation by adding topological constraints. The paper is a research plan rather than a completed empirical study; it reports an SLR as progress and proposes to evaluate the framework on synthetic and industrial graph applications, including graph-based LLMs. It also acknowledges that test case generation has high complexity and scalability issues, which it leaves to future work.

Load-bearing premise

The plan rests on the idea that in realistic GNNs, changing only a node's sensitive attribute while preserving its graph neighborhood will often change the prediction; if such flips rarely change outcomes in practice, the generated test cases will fail to expose unfairness.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the framework works, GNN auditors can point to specific nodes whose protected attribute flip changes a prediction while the surrounding graph stays intact, giving concrete evidence of individual unfairness.
  • The layer-wise neuron coverage criterion would give a quantitative measure of how complete a fairness test suite is, analogous to coverage criteria in software testing.
  • Structure-preserving generation would catch biases that propagate through neighborhoods, which IID test-case methods would miss.
  • Retraining on the generated discriminatory instances offers a mitigation path that aims to reduce individual unfairness without sacrificing model accuracy.
  • Applied to graph-based LLMs, the framework could turn fairness testing into a routine audit step for enterprise knowledge-graph question answering systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is to treat surviving many structure-preserving sensitive-attribute flips as a certification signal: a model with no flips on a large sample may be robustly fair at the individual level, not just fair on the tested cases.
  • The framework could be validated on synthetic graphs with deliberately planted bias; if the generator reliably finds the planted discriminatory instances, both the generation and coverage criteria are confirmed.
  • Layer-wise neuron coverage alone does not indicate how severe a fairness violation is, so pairing it with a measure of prediction-change magnitude or confidence shift would strengthen the adequacy metric.
  • Because the generated instances differ only in a protected attribute while keeping graph structure, they could double as counterfactual explanations, connecting fairness testing to model explainability.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a PhD-project research plan (submitted to EASE 2025) rather than a completed technical study. It argues that individual fairness testing for Graph Neural Networks is underexplored and proposes a three-phase program: (i) a systematic literature review that produces an individual-fairness taxonomy, reported as substantially complete (1,118 papers retrieved and 136 selected); (ii) a GNN-specific fairness-testing framework whose components are structure-preserving test-case generation of individual discriminatory instances, a layer-wise fairness neuron coverage adequacy criterion, test oracles, execution, and retraining; and (iii) validation through industrial case studies with Deloitte on graph-based LLMs. No algorithms, formal definitions, experiments, or evaluation results are presented; the only concrete results are the SLR process statistics and the agreed industrial use case.

Significance. The planned framework targets a real and recognized problem: existing fairness test-case generation methods operate on IID data and do not account for message passing, so GNN-specific testing approaches are needed. The paper's strengths are its clear research questions, its explicit acknowledgement that naive graph conversions from tabular data are problematic (Sec. 2.1, citing Qian et al. [42]), and the planned industrial validation through action research. If the framework were implemented and evaluated, the proposed structure-preserving IDI generation and GNN-specific adequacy metric could be useful contributions. However, the current manuscript contains no technical results, no formal definitions, and two central design choices—the constraints for IDI generation and the test oracle—raise concerns that must be resolved before the plan can be considered viable. The paper also explicitly acknowledges limitations in existing datasets and commits to using synthetic generation methods, which is commendable, but the overall contribution is at the proposal stage.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2 (Phase 2) and Sec. 2.1] The paper asserts that generating IDIs for GNNs requires preserving both the node's features and the structural dependencies induced by graph topology, and that structure-preserving perturbations should maintain node degree and neighborhood consistency. For the German and Credit datasets discussed in Sec. 2.1, however, edges are constructed from feature similarity, so a node's neighborhood is a function of its features. Flipping the sensitive attribute while holding everything else, including the edge set, fixed creates counterfactuals that lie in a low-density region of the joint (features, structure) distribution; a prediction flip on such inputs may reflect out-of-distribution artifacts rather than discrimination. The manuscript does not define how naturalness will be measured or how the tension between structure preservation and remaining on the data manifold will be resolved. This directly affects the central claim in Sec. 4.2 that the framework enables effective individual fairness testing in GNNs.
  2. [Sec. 1.2 and Sec. 4.2] The statement 'no dedicated research on individual or group fairness testing specifically for GNNs' is contradicted by the paper's own related-work section, which lists REDRESS [8], IFMR [29], FairGAE [12], and InFoRM [23] as individual-fairness methods for GNNs. If the intended distinction is that none of these is a testing approach as opposed to a mitigation or measurement approach, that distinction should be made explicit and defended; as written, the research-gap claim is overstated.
  3. [Sec. 2 (Phase 2)] The test oracle described in the framework uses statistical parity difference, a group-fairness metric that compares favorable outcome rates across protected groups. The paper's own definition of an individual discriminatory instance is an input whose prediction changes when only the protected attribute changes; the corresponding oracle should compare the model's predictions on the original and perturbed instances. Using a group-level parity metric is misaligned with individual fairness testing and would not detect the individual-level violations the framework aims to find.
  4. [Sec. 2 (Phase 2) and Sec. 4.2] The proposed 'layer-wise fairness neuron coverage' adequacy criterion is presented as a novel contribution but is never defined. The manuscript does not state what makes a neuron fairness-relevant, how layer-wise coverage is computed, or how this criterion extends existing neuron-coverage and fairness-adequacy metrics such as those in [64]. Without these details, the criterion is only a name and cannot yet be evaluated as a contribution.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title page] The author email address contains a typo ('tilbuurguniversity.edu'), and the advisor email shown in the header is inconsistent with the spelled-out affiliation details.
  2. [References] References [53] and [54] are the same paper (Wang, Narasimhan, Yao, and Zhang, ICDM 2023) but are listed as if they were distinct sources.
  3. [Sec. 1.3] The third research question is labeled RQ2 immediately after SQ2; using the same numbering style for sub-questions and the application-level question is confusing.
  4. [Sec. 2 (Phase 2)] The text attributes 'gradient-guided adversarial sampling' to reference [55] (MAFT), but that paper proposes a zero-order gradient search; the canonical white-box adversarial sampling method is [63]. The citation should be checked.
  5. [Sec. 5] The conclusion says 'In the section phase' where 'the second phase' is intended; this appears to be a typo.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper is a research plan with no derivation chain, no fitted parameters, and no load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The paper is a PhD research plan, not a paper that derives predictions from fitted inputs. Its central contributions—structure-preserving test case generation for GNNs and a layer-wise fairness neuron coverage adequacy criterion—are stated as proposals to be developed and evaluated in future work (Sec. 2, Phase 2; Sec. 4.2). There is no equation that reduces a claimed output to an input, no parameter fitted to a target dataset and then renamed as a prediction, and no argument whose premise is established only by a self-citation. The only self-referential element is that the research gap is said to be 'identified through my conducted systematic literature review (SLR)' (Sec. 1.3); however, an SLR is a literature synthesis used to motivate a research direction, not a theorem or empirical result that the framework then presupposes in a circular way. The framework's naturalness/validity claim is an unproven assumption about counterfactual realism, which is a correctness risk rather than a circularity: the paper does not define or verify naturalness, and the reader's skeptic concern about out-of-distribution counterfactuals is a substantive technical challenge, not a reduction of the proposal to its own inputs. No renamed known result is presented, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. Under the hard rules, a self-contained research plan with no derivation chain should receive score 0; this is the honest finding here.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

No free parameters are used because no experiments or models are presented. The axioms are domain assumptions the proposal relies on. One new conceptual entity is proposed (layer-wise fairness neuron coverage).

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Similar individuals should receive similar outcomes (individual fairness definition)
    The paper adopts Dwork et al.'s definition of individual fairness, cited as [10] in Section 1.2, and uses it as the normative basis for the framework.
  • domain assumption Bias in graph structure and training data propagates through GNN message passing and can amplify discrimination
    This is asserted in Section 1.2 with citations [6,53]; the entire motivation depends on this premise.
  • domain assumption Existing IID fairness testing techniques are ill-suited for GNNs because graph data is non-IID
    The paper states this in Section 1.2 and Section 4.2, citing [66]; the proposal of GNN-specific adaptations depends on it.
  • ad hoc to paper The author's unpublished systematic literature review correctly identifies the research gap
    The gap claim (no dedicated GNN fairness testing) is attributed to the author's own SLR, which is not provided in this preprint.
invented entities (1)
  • Layer-wise fairness neuron coverage
    purpose: A proposed test adequacy metric to measure how well test cases activate fairness-relevant neurons across GNN layers.
    Introduced in Section 2, Phase 2, as a novel GNN-specific adequacy criterion; no formal definition, implementation, or validation is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Testing Individual Fairness in Graph Neural Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/352HU6VS

@misc{pith2026250418353,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Testing Individual Fairness in Graph Neural Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/352HU6VS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.18353}
}
read the original abstract

The biases in artificial intelligence (AI) models can lead to automated decision-making processes that discriminate against groups and/or individuals based on sensitive properties such as gender and race. While there are many studies on diagnosing and mitigating biases in various AI models, there is little research on individual fairness in Graph Neural Networks (GNNs). Unlike traditional models, which treat data features independently and overlook their inter-relationships, GNNs are designed to capture graph-based structure where nodes are interconnected. This relational approach enables GNNs to model complex dependencies, but it also means that biases can propagate through these connections, complicating the detection and mitigation of individual fairness violations. This PhD project aims to develop a testing framework to assess and ensure individual fairness in GNNs. It first systematically reviews the literature on individual fairness, categorizing existing approaches to define, measure, test, and mitigate model biases, creating a taxonomy of individual fairness. Next, the project will develop a framework for testing and ensuring fairness in GNNs by adapting and extending current fairness testing and mitigation techniques. The framework will be evaluated through industrial case studies, focusing on graph-based large language models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.18353 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of SLR Process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A Framework for Testing and Ensuring Individual Fairness in GNNs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [42]

    Xiaowei Qian, Zhimeng Guo, Jialiang Li, Haitao Mao, Bingheng Li, Suhang Wang, and Yao Ma. 2024. Addressing Shortcomings in Fair Graph Learning Datasets: Towards a New Benchmark. 5602–5612. doi:10.1145/3637528.3671616

    arXiv 2024

  2. [8]

    Yushun Dong, Jian Kang, Hanghang Tong, and Jundong Li. 2021. Individual Fairness for Graph Neural Networks: A Ranking based Approach. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining (Virtual Event, Singapore) (KDD ’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 300–310. doi:10.1145/3447548.3467266

    arXiv 2021

  3. [29]

    Haifeng Liu, Hongfei Lin, Bo Xu, Nan Zhao, Dongzhen Wen, Xiaokun Zhang, and Yuan Lin. 2022. Perceived individual fairness with a molecular representation for medicine recommendations. Know.-Based Syst. 247, C (July 2022), 14 pages. doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2022.108755

    arXiv 2022

  4. [12]

    Wei Fan, Kunpeng Liu, Rui Xie, Hao Liu, Hui Xiong, and Yanjie Fu. 2021. Fair Graph Auto-Encoder for Unbiased Graph Representations with Wasserstein Distance. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM) . 1054–

    work page 2021

  5. [23]

    Jian Kang, Jingrui He, Ross Maciejewski, and Hanghang Tong. 2020. InFoRM: Individual Fairness on Graph Mining. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining (Virtual Event, CA, USA) (KDD ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 379–389. doi:10.1145/3394486.3403080

    arXiv 2020

  6. [64]

    Peixin Zhang, Jingyi Wang, Jun Sun, and Xinyu Wang. 2021. Fairness Testing of Deep Image Classification with Adequacy Metrics. ArXiv abs/2111.08856 (2021)

    arXiv 2021

  7. [1]

    Aniya Aggarwal, Pranay Lohia, Seema Nagar, Kuntal Dey, and Diptikalyan Saha

    work page

  8. [2]

    A. E. Barinov and A. A. Zakharov. 2015. Clustering using a random walk on graph for head pose estimation. In 2015 International Conference on Mechanical Engineering, Automation and Control Systems (MEACS) . 1–5. doi:10.1109/MEACS. 2015.7414876

    work page arXiv 2015

Show all 71 references
  1. [3]

    Alejandro Barredo Arrieta, Natalia Díaz-Rodríguez, Javier Del Ser, Adrien Ben- netot, Siham Tabik, Alberto Barbado, Salvador Garcia, Sergio Gil-Lopez, Daniel Molina, Richard Benjamins, Raja Chatila, and Francisco Herrera. 2020. Ex- plainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Conc...

    2020 doi

  2. [4]

    Rossi, Namyong Park, Puja Trivedi, Yu Wang, Tong Yu, Sungchul Kim, Franck Dernoncourt, and Nesreen K

    April Chen, Ryan A. Rossi, Namyong Park, Puja Trivedi, Yu Wang, Tong Yu, Sungchul Kim, Franck Dernoncourt, and Nesreen K. Ahmed. 2024. Fairness- Aware Graph Neural Networks: A Survey. ACM Trans. Knowl. Discov. Data 18, 6, Article 138 (April 2024), 23 pages. doi:10.1145/3649142

    2024 doi

  3. [5]

    Zhang, Max Hort, Mark Harman, and Federica Sarro

    Zhenpeng Chen, Jie M. Zhang, Max Hort, Mark Harman, and Federica Sarro. 2024. Fairness Testing: A Comprehensive Survey and Analysis of Trends. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 33, 5, Article 137 (June 2024), 59 pages. doi:10.1145/3652155

    2024 doi

  4. [6]

    Enyan Dai and Suhang Wang. 2020. FairGNN: Eliminating the Discrimination in Graph Neural Networks with Limited Sensitive Attribute Information. ArXiv abs/2009.01454 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  5. [7]

    Enyan Dai and Suhang Wang. 2021. Say No to the Discrimination: Learning Fair Graph Neural Networks with Limited Sensitive Attribute Information. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (Virtual Event, Israel) (WSDM ’21). Associatio...

    2021

  6. [9]

    Yushun Dong, Jing Ma, Song Wang, Chen Chen, and Jundong Li. 2023. Fairness in Graph Mining: A Survey. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 35, 10 (2023), 10583–10602. doi:10.1109/TKDE.2023.3265598

    2023

  7. [10]

    Cynthia Dwork, Moritz Hardt, Toniann Pitassi, Omer Reingold, and Rich Zemel

  8. [13]

    Bahare Fatemi, Jonathan Halcrow, and Bryan Perozzi. 2024. Talk like a Graph: Encoding Graphs for Large Language Models. In The Twelfth International Con- ference on Learning Representations

    2024

  9. [14]

    Sainyam Galhotra, Yuriy Brun, and Alexandra Meliou. 2017. Fairness testing: testing software for discrimination. In Proceedings of the 2017 11th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering (Paderborn, Germany) (ESEC/FSE 2017). Association for Computing Machinery, New ...

    2017

  10. [15]

    Ziheng Gao, Naiyang Guan, and Longfei Su. 2018. Graph Regularized Symmetric Non-Negative Matrix Factorization for Graph Clustering. In 2018 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Data Mining Workshops (ICDMW) . 379–384. doi:10.1109/ ICDMW.2018.00062

    2018

  11. [16]

    Vahid Garousi and Michael Felderer. 2017. Experience-based guidelines for effec- tive and efficient data extraction in systematic reviews in software engineering. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering (Karlskro...

    2017

  12. [17]

    Moritz Hardt, Eric Price, and Nathan Srebro. 2016. Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learning. ArXiv abs/1610.02413 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  13. [18]

    Harsha, Saif Obaid, Debarshi Mazumder, Y

    P. Harsha, Saif Obaid, Debarshi Mazumder, Y. Nagendar, and Zainab Abed Al- moussawi. 2024. Multi Resolution based Graph Convolutional Networks for Detecting Communities in Social Networks. In 2024 International Conference on Intelligent Algorithms for Computational Intelligenc...

    2024

  14. [19]

    Shagufta Henna and Shyam Krishnan Kalliadan. 2021. Enterprise Analytics using Graph Database and Graph-based Deep Learning. ArXiv (2021)

    2021

  15. [20]

    Kenneth Holstein, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, Hal Daumé, Miro Dudik, and Hanna Wallach. 2019. Improving Fairness in Machine Learning Systems: What Do Industry Practitioners Need?. InProceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland U...

    2019

  16. [21]

    Xuanwen Huang, Kaiqiao Han, Yang Yang, Dezheng Bao, Quanjin Tao, Ziwei Chai, and Qi Zhu. 2024. Can GNN be Good Adapter for LLMs? Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2024 (2024)

    2024

  17. [22]

    Chadni Islam, Muhammad Ali Babar, and Surya Nepal. 2019. A Multi-Vocal Review of Security Orchestration. ACM Comput. Surv. 52, 2 (2019), 45 pages. doi:10.1145/3305268

    2019 doi

  18. [24]

    Rothenberger Ken Peffers, Tuure Tuunanen and Samir Chatterjee

    Marcus A. Rothenberger Ken Peffers, Tuure Tuunanen and Samir Chatterjee

  19. [25]

    Tahsin Alamgir Kheya, Mohamed Reda Bouadjenek, and Sunil Aryal. 2024. The Pursuit of Fairness in Artificial Intelligence Models: A Survey. (2024). arXiv:2403.17333 [cs.AI]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [26]

    Barbara Kitchenham. 2004. Procedures for performing systematic reviews. Keele, UK, Keele University 33, 2004 (2004), 1–26

    2004

  21. [27]

    Jon Kleinberg, Sendhil Mullainathan, and Manish Raghavan. 2016. Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scores. (09 2016). doi:10.48550/ EASE 2025, 17–20 June, 2025, Istanbul, Türkiye Nasiri et al. arXiv.1609.05807

    2016 arXiv

  22. [28]

    Jie Li, Tianqing Zhu, Wei Ren, and Kim-Kwang Raymond. 2023. Improve individ- ual fairness in federated learning via adversarial training. Comput. Secur. 132, C (Sept. 2023), 10 pages. doi:10.1016/j.cose.2023.103336

    2023

  23. [30]

    Jiawen Liu, Xing Xing, Tianchi Wang, and Zhichun Jia. 2023. A Survey on Graph Neural Networks Method under Social Recommendation. In2023 9th Annual Inter- national Conference on Network and Information Systems for Computers (ICNISC) . 583–588. doi:10.1109/ICNISC60562.2023.00036

    2023

  24. [31]

    Liting Liu, Wenzheng Zhang, Jie Liu, Wenxuan Shi, and Yalou Huang. 2021. Learning multi-graph neural network for data-driven job skill prediction. In 2021 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) . IEEE, 1–8

    2021

  25. [32]

    Chengsheng Mao and Yuan Luo. 2022. Improving Graph Representation Learning with Distribution Preserving. In2022 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM). 1095–1100. doi:10.1109/ICDM54844.2022.00137

    2022

  26. [33]

    Ninareh Mehrabi, Fred Morstatter, Nripsuta Saxena, Kristina Lerman, and Aram Galstyan. 2022. A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learning. (2022). arXiv:1908.09635 [cs.LG]

    2022 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Verya Monjezi, Ashutosh Trivedi, Gang Tan, and Saeid Tizpaz-Niari. 2023. Information-Theoretic Testing and Debugging of Fairness Defects in Deep Neu- ral Networks. In Proceedings of the 45th International Conference on Software Engineering (Melbourne, Victoria, Australia) (ICS...

    2023

  28. [35]

    Debarghya Mukherjee, Mikhail Yurochkin, Moulinath Banerjee, and Yuekai Sun

  29. [36]

    Murgod, P

    Tejaswini R. Murgod, P. Srihith Reddy, Shamitha Gaddam, S. Meenakshi Sun- daram, and C. Anitha. 2024. A Survey on Graph Neural Networks and its Applications in Various Domains. SN Comput. Sci. 6, 1 (Dec. 2024), 12 pages. doi:10.1007/s42979-024-03543-4

    2024 doi

  30. [37]

    John Palowitch and Bryan Perozzi. 2021. Debiasing graph representations via metadata-orthogonal training. In Proceedings of the 12th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (Virtual Event, Netherlands) (ASONAM ’20). IEEE Press, 435–...

    2021

  31. [38]

    Shirui Pan, Linhao Luo, Yufei Wang, Chen Chen, Jiapu Wang, and Xindong Wu

  32. [39]

    Bryan Perozzi, Bahare Fatemi, Dustin Zelle, Anton Tsitsulin, Mehran Kazemi, Rami Al-Rfou, and Jonathan J. Halcrow. 2024. Let Your Graph Do the Talking: Encoding Structured Data for LLMs. ArXiv abs/2402.05862 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  33. [40]

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

    2022 doi

  34. [41]

    Nicolas Pfeuffer, Lorenz Baum, Wolfgang Stammer, Benjamin Abdel-Karim, Patrick Schramowski, Andreas Bucher, Christian Hügel, Gernot Rohde, Kris- tian Kersting, and Oliver Hinz. 2023. Explanatory Interactive Machine Learning. Business & Information Systems Engineering 65 (04 20...

    2023 doi

  35. [43]

    Kuruoglu

    Dayu Qin and Ercan E. Kuruoglu. 2024. Graph Learning Based Financial Mar- ket Crash Identification and Prediction. In 2024 IEEE Conference on Artificial Intelligence (CAI). 650–651. doi:10.1109/CAI59869.2024.00127

    2024

  36. [44]

    Xubin Ren, Jiabin Tang, Dawei Yin, Nitesh Chawla, and Chao Huang. 2024. A Survey of Large Language Models for Graphs. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (Barcelona, Spain) (KDD ’24). Association for Computing Machinery, New ...

    2024

  37. [45]

    Per Runeson, Emelie Engström, and Margaret-Anne Storey. 2020. The Design Science Paradigm as a Frame for Empirical Software Engineering . Springer Inter- national Publishing, Cham, 127–147. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-32489-6_5

    2020 doi

  38. [46]

    Phillip Schneider, Tim Schopf, Juraj Vladika, Mikhail Galkin, Elena Simperl, and Florian Matthes. 2022. A Decade of Knowledge Graphs in Natural Language Processing: A Survey. arXiv:2210.00105 [cs.CL]

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Yong Shi, Yi Qu, Zhensong Chen, Yunlong Mi, and Yunong Wang. 2024. Improved credit risk prediction based on an integrated graph representation learning approach with graph transformation. European Journal of Operational Research 315, 2 (2024), 786–801. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2023.12.028

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    Miroslaw Staron. 2020. Action Research as Research Methodology in Software Engineering. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 15–36. doi:10.1007/978-3- 030-32610-4_2

    2020 doi

  41. [49]

    Guanhong Tao, Weisong Sun, Tingxu Han, Chunrong Fang, and Xiangyu Zhang

  42. [50]

    Sakshi Udeshi, Pryanshu Arora, and Sudipta Chattopadhyay. 2018. Automated Directed Fairness Testing. 2018 33rd IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE) (2018), 98–108

    2018

  43. [51]

    Cunxiang Wang, Xiaoze Liu, Yuanhao Yue, Xiangru Tang, Tianhang Zhang, Cheng Jiayang, Yunzhi Yao, Wenyang Gao, Xuming Hu, Zehan Qi, Yidong Wang, Linyi Yang, Jindong Wang, Xing Xie, Zheng Zhang, and Yue Zhang. 2023. Survey on Factuality in Large Language Models: Knowledge, Retri...

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Zichong Wang, Jocelyn Dzuong, Xiaoyong Yuan, Zhong Chen, Yanzhao Wu, Xin Yao, and Wenbin Zhang. 2024. Individual Fairness with Group Awareness Under Uncertainty. In Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases. Research Track: European Conference, ECML PKDD 2024, Viln...

    2024 doi

  45. [54]

    Zichong Wang, Giri Narasimhan, Xin Yao, and Wenbin Zhang. 2023. Mitigating Multisource Biases in Graph Neural Networks via Real Counterfactual Samples. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM) . 638–647. doi:10. 1109/ICDM58522.2023.00073

    2023

  46. [55]

    Zhaohui Wang, Min Zhang, Jingran Yang, Bojie Shao, and Min Zhang. 2024. MAFT: Efficient Model-Agnostic Fairness Testing for Deep Neural Networks via Zero-Order Gradient Search. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering (Lisbon, Portug...

    2024

  47. [56]

    Matthew Wicker, Vihari Piratia, and Adrian Weller. 2023. Certification of distri- butional individual fairness. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (New Orleans, LA, USA) (NIPS ’23). Curran Associates Inc., Red Hook, NY,...

    2023

  48. [58]

    Yisong Xiao, Aishan Liu, Tianlin Li, and Xianglong Liu. 2023. Latent Imitator: Generating Natural Individual Discriminatory Instances for Black-Box Fairness Testing. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Soft- ware Testing and Analysis (Seattle, WA,...

    2023

  49. [59]

    I-Cheng Yeh and Che-hui Lien. 2009. The comparisons of data mining techniques for the predictive accuracy of probability of default of credit card clients. Expert Syst. Appl. 36, 2 (March 2009), 2473–2480

    2009

  50. [60]

    Zhang, Sarah H

    Cindy Y. Zhang, Sarah H. Cen, and Devavrat Shah. 2023. Matrix estimation for individual fairness. In Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning (Honolulu, Hawaii, USA) (ICML’23). JMLR.org, Article 1713, 17 pages

    2023

  51. [61]

    Zhang, Mark Harman, Lei Ma, and Yang Liu

    Jie M. Zhang, Mark Harman, Lei Ma, and Yang Liu. 2022. Machine Learning Test- ing: Survey, Landscapes and Horizons. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 48, 1 (2022), 1–36. doi:10.1109/TSE.2019.2962027

    2022

  52. [62]

    Lingfeng Zhang, Yueling Zhang, and Min Zhang. 2021. Efficient white-box fairness testing through gradient search. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis (Virtual, Denmark) (ISSTA 2021). Association for Computing Machiner...

    2021

  53. [63]

    Peixin Zhang, Jingyi Wang, Jun Sun, Guoliang Dong, Xinyu Wang, Xingen Wang, Jin Song Dong, and Ting Dai. 2020. White-box fairness testing through adversar- ial sampling. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering (Seoul, South Korea) (...

    2020

  54. [65]

    Wen Zhang, Kai Shu, Huan Liu, and Yalin Wang. 2019. Graph Neural Networks for User Identity Linkage. ArXiv abs/1903.02174 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  55. [66]

    Wenbin Zhang, Shuigeng Zhou, Toby Walsh, and Jeremy C. Weiss. 2025. Fairness amidst non-IID graph data: A literature review.AI Mag. 46, 1 (Jan. 2025), 13 pages. doi:10.1002/aaai.12212

    2025 doi

  56. [67]

    Haibin Zheng, Zhiqing Chen, Tianyu Du, Xuhong Zhang, Yao Cheng, Shouling Ji, Jingyi Wang, Yue Yu, and Jinyin Chen. 2022. NeuronFair: interpretable white- box fairness testing through biased neuron identification. In Proceedings of the 44th International Conference on Software ...

    2022

  57. [1059]

    doi:10.1109/ICDM51629.2021.00122

    2021

  58. [2007]

    Journal of Management Information Systems 24, 3 (2007), 45–77

    A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research. Journal of Management Information Systems 24, 3 (2007), 45–77. doi:10.2753/ MIS0742-1222240302

    2007

  59. [2011]

    Fairness Through Awareness. (2011). arXiv:1104.3913 [cs.CC]

    2011 arXiv

  60. [2019]

    Black box fairness testing of machine learning models. In Proceedings of the 2019 27th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (Tallinn, Estonia) (ESEC/FSE 2019). Association for Computing Machinery...

    2019

  61. [2020]

    In Proceed- ings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML’20)

    Two simple ways to learn individual fairness metrics from data. In Proceed- ings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML’20). JMLR.org, Article 658, 11 pages

  62. [2022]

    In Proceedings of the 30th ACM Joint European Software Engi- neering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (Singapore, Singapore) (ESEC/FSE 2022)

    RULER: discriminative and iterative adversarial training for deep neural network fairness. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM Joint European Software Engi- neering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (Singapore, Singapore) (ESEC/FSE 2022). Associati...

    2022

  63. [2023]

    IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 36 (2023), 3580–3599

    Unifying Large Language Models and Knowledge Graphs: A Roadmap. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 36 (2023), 3580–3599

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.