Pith. sign in

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

arxiv 2112.05700 v1 pith:BNGQ76OM submitted 2021-12-10 cs.AI

classification cs.AI
keywords fairnessbeenbiaslearningmachinepractitionersresearchreview
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
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.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Position is Power: System Prompts as a Mechanism of Bias in Large Language Models (LLMs)

    cs.CY 2025-05 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    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.

  2. Exploring the Landscape of Fairness Interventions in Software Engineering

    cs.SE 2025-07 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    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.

Pith tools