REVIEW 2 cited by
A Framework for Fairness: A Systematic Review of Existing Fair AI Solutions
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
In a world of daily emerging scientific inquisition and discovery, the prolific launch of machine learning across industries comes to little surprise for those familiar with the potential of ML. Neither so should the congruent expansion of ethics-focused research that emerged as a response to issues of bias and unfairness that stemmed from those very same applications. Fairness research, which focuses on techniques to combat algorithmic bias, is now more supported than ever before. A large portion of fairness research has gone to producing tools that machine learning practitioners can use to audit for bias while designing their algorithms. Nonetheless, there is a lack of application of these fairness solutions in practice. This systematic review provides an in-depth summary of the algorithmic bias issues that have been defined and the fairness solution space that has been proposed. Moreover, this review provides an in-depth breakdown of the caveats to the solution space that have arisen since their release and a taxonomy of needs that have been proposed by machine learning practitioners, fairness researchers, and institutional stakeholders. These needs have been organized and addressed to the parties most influential to their implementation, which includes fairness researchers, organizations that produce ML algorithms, and the machine learning practitioners themselves. These findings can be used in the future to bridge the gap between practitioners and fairness experts and inform the creation of usable fair ML toolkits.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Position is Power: System Prompts as a Mechanism of Bias in Large Language Models (LLMs)
Placing demographic audience information in system prompts rather than user prompts shifts sentiment and ranking outputs across six commercial LLMs, but the design confounds position with instruction content.
-
Exploring the Landscape of Fairness Interventions in Software Engineering
A survey of fairness interventions in software engineering that organizes prior work into a taxonomy and adds a small empirical analysis of open-source fairness repository maintenance.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.