Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 37 references

Justified Evidence Collection for Argument-based AI Fairness Assurance

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that a two-step framework combining argument-based assurance with dynamic evidence collection from transparency artefacts can make AI fairness assurance a continuous, evidence-backed process rather than a one-off review.

desk verdict Useful fairness assurance framework, but the case study undercuts its own evidence-collection mechanism; deserves a serious referee after some claim-tightening. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.08064 v1 pith:RRZAVH3Z submitted 2025-05-12 cs.HC cs.AIcs.CY

Alpay Sabuncuoglu , Christopher Burr , Carsten Maple This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HCcs.AIcs.CY
keywords AIfairnessargument-basedassurancecontinuousmonitoringtransparencyartefactsmodelcardsdatausecasefinancestudy
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

The paper tries to establish that AI fairness assurance can be made dynamic and operational by combining argument-based assurance cases with continuously gathered evidence from existing documentation artefacts. Fairness in AI is usually treated as a one-time evaluation, but this framework structures fairness as a set of claims that must be supported by verifiable evidence throughout a system's life. The authors show how a multidisciplinary team can define fairness goals and property claims during planning, then use model cards, data cards, and use case cards as sources of 'justified evidence' during monitoring. A finance case study on news sentiment analysis demonstrates the workflow, including cases where missing documentation forces extra analysis. If the approach works at scale, organisations would have a systematic, auditable way to link fairness intentions to evidence that updates as the system changes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the assurance case: a structured argument that connects a high-level goal claim to property claims and ultimately to evidence. The paper operationalises this with a four-level hierarchy of ML stages, components, assessment, and implications, which dictates how property claims are decomposed and which transparency artefacts can evidence them. Around this, the software tooling records fairness experiment metadata, such as dataset characteristics, sensitive attributes, model predictions, and group-level bias metrics, and synchronises it with data and model cards so the argument can be re-evaluated as new evidence arrives. The admissibility of that evidence rests on the notion of 'justified evidence': documented, measurable, reproducible information such as benchmark results, audit trails, and test metrics.

What would settle it

A controlled deployment test: run the monitoring stage using only the transparency artefacts a team already produced, with no new manual experiments, and check whether every property claim in a predefined fairness assurance case can be substantiated; if any claim remains unsupported, the framework's evidence stage fails as designed in that context.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that fairness assurance for AI systems can be made dynamic by joining argument-based assurance cases with continuous evidence collection from transparency artefacts, and that this can be operationalised in two stages. In the requirements phase, stakeholders define goal claims, context, strategies, and property claims organised around data, model, and interaction components. In the monitoring phase, a software interface gathers fairness-relevant metadata from model cards, data cards, use case cards, and experiment logs, synchronising that evidence into the assurance case. The finance case study shows the workflow on a financial news sentiment model (FinBERT) evaluated against an Indian news dataset, using representation analysis, subgroup fairness metrics, and token-level 'what-if' explanations as evidence. The authors present this as a way to keep fairness assumptions explicit and revise them as evidence accumulates, thereby addressing the portability trap in algorithmic fairness.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that existing transparency artefacts hold enough fairness-relevant metadata to serve as justified evidence without disproportionate manual effort, but the paper's own case study had to supplement the dataset card with ad hoc named-entity analysis.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Fairness assurance becomes a continuous activity, with each new experiment or documentation update feeding the assurance case so that assurance reflects the system as deployed rather than as reviewed once.
  • Organisations can reuse documentation they already produce, lowering the marginal cost of fairness assurance and aligning it with existing risk management structures.
  • The framework makes fairness assumptions explicit and revisable, giving a concrete mechanism for addressing the portability trap in AI fairness.
  • Multi-stakeholder deliberation in the requirements phase is given a structured output, so fairness definitions and trade-offs are recorded as part of the argument rather than left implicit.
  • The component-based property claims and evidence workflow can be adapted to other domains that use similar transparency artefacts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that its monitoring stage inherits all the gaps in existing transparency artefacts; a natural next step would be to measure how often off-the-shelf cards contain enough fairness fields to support a claim without bespoke analysis.
  • A testable extension is to add standardised fairness fields to model, data, and use case card schemas and re-run the finance walkthrough; if those fields significantly reduce manual evidence work, the framework's scaling story holds.
  • The four-level component hierarchy is not fairness-specific, so the same machinery could be adapted to explainability or privacy assurance, though the paper does not demonstrate that extension.
  • A quantitative evaluation could track whether assurance cases built this way detect fairness-relevant drift in a deployed model earlier than periodic manual audits.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a two-stage framework for AI fairness assurance that combines argument-based assurance cases with dynamic evidence collection from transparency artefacts such as model cards, data cards, and use case cards. Stage one, during requirements planning, has a multi-stakeholder team define fairness goals and structured claims; stage two uses a continuous monitoring interface to gather evidence from existing documentation and experimental results. The framework is implemented in the authors' Trustworthy and Ethical Assurance (TEA) platform plus an open-source fairness-monitoring toolkit, and it is demonstrated through a heuristic walkthrough of a financial news sentiment analysis system using FinBERT on an Indian financial news dataset. The paper argues this approach supports justified trust, addresses the portability trap, and integrates with risk-management structures such as the EU AI Act and ISO standards.

Significance. If the central mechanism were validated, the paper would make a useful practical contribution: it gives organisations a structured way to connect high-level fairness goals to continuously updated, documentable evidence, and it provides open-source tooling and templates that lower the barrier to adoption. The explicit linkage to existing standards (ISO 27001/24027, OWASP, EU AI Act) and the emphasis on multi-stakeholder deliberation are strengths, as is the authors' candour about gaps in current documentation practice. However, the paper's effectiveness claim rests entirely on a single heuristic walkthrough, and the walkthrough itself shows that existing transparency artefacts do not contain the fairness-relevant metadata the framework relies on. The contribution is therefore best viewed as a proposed scaffolding for fairness assurance, not as a demonstrated solution; with honest reframing and a clearer account of its limitations, the framework could still be valuable to practitioners and researchers.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.3, §3.4, §4.5] The paper's central mechanism—gathering justified evidence dynamically from existing transparency artefacts—is not demonstrated by the case study. Section 3.3 claims model, data, and use case cards can serve as justified evidence, and the abstract says the monitoring interface gathers evidence from such artefacts. Yet Section 4.5.1 reports that the Indian Financial News dataset card 'misses key information about fairness, specifically, representativeness, and data collection methodologies', and Section 3.4 explicitly states that these cards 'are not designed to address potential fairness recording needs', prompting the authors to create a bespoke fairness recording template. The three evidence-collection tasks in Section 4.5 (NER-based representation counts, Fairlearn subgroup metrics, and LIT token-level probes) are custom experiments recorded in a custom 'fairness log file' (Section 4.5.4), not outputs retrievable from existing transparency artefacts. Consequently, the paper does not validate the claimed dynamic evidence-gathering mechanism; it demonstrates manual, project-specific evidence production attached to a generic argument structure. The standardization and scalability claims in Section 5 therefore rest on an unvalidated assumption that future artefacts will contain fairness-relevant metadata, a premise the case study itself contradicts.
  2. [§4 (heuristic walkthrough overall)] The evaluation is a heuristic walkthrough with no controlled comparison, no baselines, and no quantitative uncertainty. The reported results are a single accuracy value (0.57 vs. the FinBERT card's 0.88), a null fairness finding described as 'did not yield a significant different based on these fairness notions' with no test statistic, threshold, or confidence interval, and one token-level LIT example with no systematic analysis. The phrases 'significantly lower' and 'significant different' are used without statistical support. In addition, Section 1 promises 'heuristic walkthroughs of case studies in finance and healthcare', but only the finance case is presented; the healthcare case is absent. To support the paper's effectiveness claims, the authors should either provide a proper evaluation with multiple cases and appropriate metrics or substantially weaken the claims to describe an illustrative application and state the evidentiary limitations explicitly.
  3. [§3.2.3, §4.4] The four-level hierarchy (ML Stages, Components, Assessment, Implications) is introduced as the mechanism for structuring fairness property claims, but the paper gives no criteria for completeness or sufficiency of the resulting argument. The case study's property claims are explicitly 'limited to our use case tasks' (Section 4.4), so the walkthrough cannot show that the hierarchy yields a comprehensive assurance argument. Without a method for identifying missing claims or evaluating whether the argument covers all relevant fairness risks, the 'comprehensive fairness governance process' claimed in the abstract is not established, and the assurance case's adequacy depends entirely on the ad hoc judgment of the development team.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§1] Typo: 'cruical' should be 'crucial'.
  2. [§4.3] Typo: 'invidual' should be 'individual'.
  3. [§4.2] The Global South/Global North binary is said to be based on UNCTAD, but the paper does not explain how countries are assigned to each group for the FinBERT evaluation, nor how the protected attribute is operationalised in the Fairlearn computations; this information is needed for reproducibility.
  4. [§4.5.4, Fig. 6] The text says 'The changes in the log file and generated reports throughout the project timeline' but never describes the contents of Figure 6 or how the log files are structured; please add a textual description or include the template schema.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a methodological proposal with no closed derivation; its minor self-citations are not load-bearing, and the main weakness is a self-referential validation path rather than definitional circularity.

full rationale

The paper makes no quantitative prediction and contains no derivation chain whose conclusion is built into its premises. Its two-stage framework is a design proposal: stage one defines goals and claims, and stage two gathers evidence from transparency artefacts. Section 3.3 states 'We can use these transparency artefacts as justified evidence to verify the team took the required actions and created enough evidence for the given arguments,' but this is an assumption or design choice, not a conclusion derived from itself. The finance case study is a heuristic walkthrough, not a test of a derived claim, and it illustrates the framework with the authors' own TEA platform and fairness-monitoring toolkit. The most circularity-adjacent issue is that the case study does not actually demonstrate evidence being gathered from existing transparency artefacts: Section 4.5.1 reports that the Indian Financial News dataset card 'misses key information about fairness, specifically, representativeness, and data collection methodologies,' and Section 3.4 admits that model, data and use case cards 'are not designed to address potential fairness recording needs.' These are substantive validation and scalability gaps for the central claim, but they are not cases where a result reduces by construction to an input. The citations to prior work by the same authors, such as the TEA platform from [6] and the finance report from [20], are used for background and motivation, not to justify the correctness of the dynamic evidence-collection mechanism. No self-citation is load-bearing for the central claim, and there is no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no ansatz smuggled in through citation. The score is therefore 2 rather than 0 only because of the mild self-referential validation path; no actual circular step is demonstrated.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework is a methodology with no fitted free parameters and no new theoretical entities. It rests on domain assumptions about the validity of argument-based assurance for fairness and the sufficiency of transparency artefacts as evidence, plus two ad hoc design choices (the property claim hierarchy and the Global South/North grouping).

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Argument-based assurance cases can meaningfully support normative goals such as fairness.
    The paper assumes that fairness can be treated as an assurance goal to be argued for and evidenced; this is a contested domain assumption, introduced in Section 2 and Section 3.
  • domain assumption Transparency artefacts contain sufficient fairness-relevant metadata to serve as justified evidence.
    Section 3.3 states that model cards, data cards, and use case cards can be used as justified evidence, but Section 4.5.1 shows the dataset card lacks fairness information.
  • ad hoc to paper The four-level hierarchy (ML Stages, Components, Assessment, Implications) is a sufficient structuring mechanism for fairness property claims.
    Introduced in Section 3.2.3 without external validation; presented as a design choice.
  • ad hoc to paper The Global South/Global North binary based on UNCTAD is a meaningful sensitive grouping for the sentiment analysis use case.
    Defined in Section 4.2; its validity as a fairness-relevant grouping is assumed without empirical justification.
  • domain assumption The reported metrics (accuracy 0.57, Fairlearn fairness metrics, NER counts) are valid indicators for fairness evaluation in this use case.
    Section 4.5 reports these numbers as evidence, but they lack error bars and a defined evaluation protocol.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Justified Evidence Collection for Argument-based AI Fairness Assurance." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RRZAVH3Z

@misc{pith2026250508064,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Justified Evidence Collection for Argument-based AI Fairness Assurance},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RRZAVH3Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.08064}
}
read the original abstract

It is well recognised that ensuring fair AI systems is a complex sociotechnical challenge, which requires careful deliberation and continuous oversight across all stages of a system's lifecycle, from defining requirements to model deployment and deprovisioning. Dynamic argument-based assurance cases, which present structured arguments supported by evidence, have emerged as a systematic approach to evaluating and mitigating safety risks and hazards in AI-enabled system development and have also been extended to deal with broader normative goals such as fairness and explainability. This paper introduces a systems-engineering-driven framework, supported by software tooling, to operationalise a dynamic approach to argument-based assurance in two stages. In the first stage, during the requirements planning phase, a multi-disciplinary and multi-stakeholder team define goals and claims to be established (and evidenced) by conducting a comprehensive fairness governance process. In the second stage, a continuous monitoring interface gathers evidence from existing artefacts (e.g. metrics from automated tests), such as model, data, and use case documentation, to support these arguments dynamically. The framework's effectiveness is demonstrated through an illustrative case study in finance, with a focus on supporting fairness-related arguments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.08064 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A toy model showing an incomplete example of an assurance case for a fairness-related goal. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. From structured arguments to collecting evidence: In the argument-based assurance process, we defined property claims using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A simplified example use case card for a financial sentiment analysis system. The template is obtained from [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Creating arguments to achieve a fairer financial sentiment analysis system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Categorical diagram of selected evaluation and mitigation techniques that can address fairness issues directly in a component [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The changes in the log file and generated reports throughout the project timeline. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bennett, Kori Inkpen, Jaime Teevan, Ruth Kikin-Gil, and Eric Horvitz

    Saleema Amershi, Dan Weld, Mihaela Vorvoreanu, Adam Fourney, Besmira Nushi, Penny Collisson, Jina Suh, Shamsi Iqbal, Paul N. Bennett, Kori Inkpen, Jaime Teevan, Ruth Kikin-Gil, and Eric Horvitz. 2019. Guidelines for Human-AI Interaction. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, Glasgow Scotland Uk, 1–13. https...

    arXiv 2019

  2. [2]

    Rob Ashmore, Radu Calinescu, and Colin Paterson. 2022. Assuring the Machine Learning Lifecycle: Desiderata, Methods, and Challenges. Comput. Surveys 54, 5 (June 2022), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1145/3453444

    doi:10.1145/3453444 2022

  3. [3]

    Civil Aviation Authority. 2010. CAP 760 - Guidance on the Conduct of Hazard Identification, Risk Assessment and the Production of Safety Cases

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    Giorgian Borca-Tasciuc, Xingzhi Guo, Stanley Bak, and Steven Skiena. 2022. Provable Fairness for Neural Network Models using Formal Verification. http://arxiv.org/abs/2212.08578 arXiv:2212.08578

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Marie Davidsen Buhl, Gaurav Sett, Leonie Koessler, Jonas Schuett, and Markus Anderljung. 2024. Safety cases for frontier AI. http://arxiv.org/abs/ 2410.21572 arXiv:2410.21572 version: 1

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Christopher Burr and David Leslie. 2021. Ethical Assurance: A practical approach to the responsible design, development, and deployment of data-driven technologies. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.05164 (2021)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Joshua Clymer, Nick Gabrieli, David Krueger, and Thomas Larsen. 2024. Safety Cases: How to Justify the Safety of Advanced AI Systems. http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.10462 arXiv:2403.10462

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    DSIT. 2024. Introduction to AI assurance - GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/introduction-to-ai-assurance/introduction-to- ai-assurance

    work page 2024

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Kelvin Du, Frank Xing, Rui Mao, and Erik Cambria. 2023. FinSenticNet: A Concept-Level Lexicon for Financial Sentiment Analysis. In 2023 IEEE Symposium Series on Computational Intelligence (SSCI) . 109–114. https://doi.org/10.1109/SSCI52147.2023.10371970

    2023

  2. [10]

    Fairlearn. [n. d.]. User Guide — Fairlearn 0.11.0.dev0 documentation. https://fairlearn.org/v0.10/user_guide/index.html

  3. [11]

    Franklin, Karan Bhanot, Mohamed Ghalwash, Kristin P

    Jade S. Franklin, Karan Bhanot, Mohamed Ghalwash, Kristin P. Bennett, Jamie McCusker, and Deborah L. McGuinness. 2022. An Ontology for Fairness Metrics (AIES ’22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 265–275. https://doi.org/10.1145/3514094.3534137

    2022

  4. [12]

    Gallegos, Ryan A

    Isabel O. Gallegos, Ryan A. Rossi, Joe Barrow, Md Mehrab Tanjim, Sungchul Kim, Franck Dernoncourt, Tong Yu, Ruiyi Zhang, and Nesreen K. Ahmed. 2023. Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey. http://arxiv.org/abs/2309.00770 arXiv:2309.00770 [cs]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Damien Garreau and Ulrike von Luxburg. 2020. Explaining the Explainer: A First Theoretical Analysis of LIME. In Proceedings of the Twenty Third International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 108) , Silvia Chia...

    2020

  6. [14]

    Ibrahim Habli, Richard Hawkins, Colin Paterson, Philippa Ryan, Yan Jia, Mark Sujan, and John Mcdermid. 2025. The BIG Argument for AI Safety Cases. (2025)

    2025

  7. [15]

    Jonathan Haidt. 2007. The new synthesis in moral psychology. science 316, 5827 (2007), 998–1002

    2007

  8. [16]

    Kenneth Holstein, Jennifer Wortman Vaughan, Hal Daumé III, Miro Dudík, and Hanna Wallach. 2019. Improving fairness in machine learning systems: What do industry practitioners need? http://arxiv.org/abs/1812.05239 arXiv:1812.05239

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    font-variant:small-caps

    Allen H. Huang, Hui Wang, and Yi Yang. 2023. <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">FinBERT</span> : A Large Language Model for Extracting Information from Financial Text*. Contemporary Accounting Research 40, 2 (May 2023), 806–841. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12832

    2023

  10. [18]

    Isabelle Hupont, David Fernández-Llorca, Sandra Baldassarri, and Emilia Gómez. 2023. Use case cards: a use case reporting framework inspired by the European AI Act. http://arxiv.org/abs/2306.13701 arXiv:2306.13701

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    The Alan Turing Institute, Innovate UK, Innovation Department for Science, Technology (DSIT), Digital Catapult, Science, Technology Facilities Council, British Standards Institution, and Alliance for Data Science Professionals. 2024. AI Skills for Business Competency Framework...

    2024 doi

  12. [20]

    Carsten Maple and Alpay Sabuncuoglu. 2024. The Impact of Large Language Models in Finance: Towards Trustworthy Adoption. https: //www.turing.ac.uk/news/publications/impact-large-language-models-finance-towards-trustworthy-adoption

    2024

  13. [21]

    Margaret Mitchell, Simone Wu, Andrew Zaldivar, Parker Barnes, Lucy Vasserman, Ben Hutchinson, Elena Spitzer, Inioluwa Deborah Raji, and Timnit Gebru. 2019. Model Cards for Model Reporting. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1810.03993 arXiv:1810.03993

    2019 doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    Zoe Porter, Ibrahim Habli, John McDermid, and Marten Kaas. 2024. A principles-based ethics assurance argument pattern for AI and autonomous systems. AI and Ethics 4, 2 (2024), 593–616

    2024

  15. [23]

    Prime Minister’s Office 10 Downing Street. 2023. The Bletchley Declaration - AI Safety Summit. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ai- safety-summit-2023-the-bletchley-declaration/the-bletchley-declaration-by-countries-attending-the-ai-safety-summit-1-2-november-2023 15...

    2023

  16. [24]

    Mahima Pushkarna, Andrew Zaldivar, and Oddur Kjartansson. 2022. Data Cards: Purposeful and Transparent Dataset Documentation for Responsible AI. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT ’22) . Association for Computing Mach...

    2022

  17. [25]

    Peng Qi, Yuhao Zhang, Yuhui Zhang, Jason Bolton, and Christopher D. Manning. 2020. Stanza: A Python Natural Language Processing Toolkit for Many Human Languages. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations ....

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    Andrew Sears. 1997. Heuristic walkthroughs: Finding the problems without the noise. International journal of human-computer interaction 9, 3 (1997), 213–234

    1997

  19. [27]

    Selbst, Danah Boyd, Sorelle A

    Andrew D. Selbst, Danah Boyd, Sorelle A. Friedler, Suresh Venkatasubramanian, and Janet Vertesi. 2019. Fairness and Abstraction in Sociotechnical Systems. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (Atlanta, GA, USA) (FAT* ’19). Association ...

    2019

  20. [28]

    Gummadi, Adish Singla, Adrian Weller, and Muhammad Bilal Zafar

    Till Speicher, Hoda Heidari, Nina Grgic-Hlaca, Krishna P. Gummadi, Adish Singla, Adrian Weller, and Muhammad Bilal Zafar. 2018. A Unified Approach to Quantifying Algorithmic Unfairness: Measuring Individual &Group Unfairness via Inequality Indices. In Proceedings of the 24th A...

    2018

  21. [29]

    Elham Tabassi. 2023. Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0). , NIST AI 100–1 pages. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    Ian Tenney, James Wexler, Jasmijn Bastings, Tolga Bolukbasi, Andy Coenen, Sebastian Gehrmann, Ellen Jiang, Mahima Pushkarna, Carey Radebaugh, Emily Reif, and Ann Yuan. 2020. The Language Interpretability Tool: Extensible, Interactive Visualizations and Analysis for NLP Models....

    2020

  23. [31]

    The European Union. 2024. EU Artificial Intelligence Act. https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/

    2024

  24. [32]

    UNCTAD (Ed.). 2018. Forging the path beyond borders: the global south . United Nations, New York Geneva

    2018

  25. [33]

    Michael Veale, Max Van Kleek, and Reuben Binns. 2018. Fairness and Accountability Design Needs for Algorithmic Support in High-Stakes Public Sector Decision-Making. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, Montreal QC Canada, 1–14....

    2018

  26. [34]

    Sahil Verma and Julia Rubin. 2018. Fairness definitions explained. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Software Fairness (Gothenburg, Sweden) (FairWare ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1145/3194770.3194776

    2018

  27. [35]

    Yuyan Wang, Xuezhi Wang, Alex Beutel, Flavien Prost, Jilin Chen, and Ed H. Chi. 2021. Understanding and Improving Fairness-Accuracy Trade-offs in Multi-Task Learning. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining (Virtual Event, Singapor...

    2021

  28. [36]

    Khensani Xivuri and Hosanna Twinomurinzi. 2023. How AI developers can assure algorithmic fairness. Discover Artificial Intelligence 3, 1 (July 2023), 27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44163-023-00074-4

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    Chhavi Yadav, Amrita Roy Chowdhury, Dan Boneh, and Kamalika Chaudhuri. 2024. FairProof : Confidential and Certifiable Fairness for Neural Networks. http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.12572 arXiv:2402.12572 version: 1. 16

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.