Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 53 references

Data Preparation for Fairness-Performance Trade-Offs: A Practitioner-Friendly Alternative?

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This registered report proposes that a near-optimal choice of everyday fairness-aware data preparation practices can improve both fairness and performance, and introduces FATE, a genetic algorithm for finding such pipelines.

desk verdict FATE's fairness score has a sign error on disparate impact, so the GA would optimize for maximal discrimination; the rest of the protocol is sound but this flaw changes everything. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15920 v1 pith:S4ZA63I2 submitted 2024-12-20 cs.SE cs.LG

Gianmario Voria , Rebecca Di Matteo , Giammaria Giordano , Gemma Catolino , Fabio Palomba This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SEcs.LG
keywords machinelearningfairnessdatapreparationgeneticalgorithmpipelineselectionfairness-performancetrade-offbiasmitigationpre-processingregisteredreport
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 registered report argues that a carefully chosen combination of ordinary data preparation practices—scaling, resampling, clustering, weighting, matching—can reduce machine-learning bias as effectively as specialized preprocessing bias-mitigation algorithms, while being easier for practitioners to adopt. To test that hypothesis, the authors introduce FATE, a genetic algorithm that searches over pipelines of such fairness-aware practices and scores each candidate with a weighted combination of PR-AUC and three fairness metrics. The study is designed as a confirmatory comparison: FATE-selected pipelines are pitted against established preprocessing techniques on three datasets and four classifiers. If the hypothesis holds, teams could mitigate bias by reusing steps they already know rather than learning dedicated debiasing tools.

What carries the argument

FATE is a genetic-algorithm-based pipeline selector. Each individual in the population is a combination of fairness-aware Data Preparation practices chosen from a catalog that includes standard scaling, min-max scaling, resampling, clustering, inverse probability weighting, and matching. Evolution is steered by a single fitness score that merges predictive performance (PR-AUC) with a composite fairness deviation $|\text{SPD}| + |\text{EOD}| + |\text{DI}|$, using crossover, mutation, and K-fold cross-validation to evaluate each pipeline. The genetic parameters—population size, number of generations, crossover rate, and mutation rate—are swept systematically to find configurations that balance the two objectives.

What would settle it

Run FATE on the Adult dataset with Logistic Regression and compare its selected pipeline against a large random sample of data-prep pipelines on held-out SPD, EOD, and DI; if the FATE-selected pipeline is not consistently better than random pipelines on these per-metric fairness values, the claim that the search finds a near-optimal fairness-enhancing pipeline fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a near-optimal selection of fairness-aware Data Preparation practices can jointly improve fairness and predictive performance, making it a practical alternative to specialized pre-processing bias mitigation. FATE operationalizes the claim by encoding candidate pipelines as individuals in a genetic algorithm and evolving them under the fitness function $\alpha \cdot \text{PR-AUC} - \beta \cdot (|\text{SPD}| + |\text{EOD}| + |\text{DI}|)$, with $\alpha$ and $\beta$ set to $0.5$. The paper positions this as a hypothesis to be confirmed by a registered study: RQ1 measures how well FATE selects near-optimal pipelines under varying genetic-algorithm parameters, and RQ2 compares the best pipelines against FairSMOTE, Reweighing, and Disparate Impact Remover on fairness, performance, and execution time.

Load-bearing premise

The entire search assumes that the composite fairness score $|\text{SPD}| + |\text{EOD}| + |\text{DI}|$ is a meaningful objective, even though the three metrics are measured on different scales, so every pipeline called 'near-optimal' is optimal only with respect to that sum.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If FATE works as hypothesized, teams can reduce bias by reusing data preparation steps they already know, without adopting specialized pre-processing algorithms.
  • FATE returns the fairness and performance metrics behind its choice, so practitioners can see why a pipeline was selected.
  • The parameter sweep will show how genetic-algorithm settings shift the fairness-performance trade-off and which settings are safest.
  • The comparison against FairSMOTE, Reweighing, and Disparate Impact Remover will indicate whether data preparation pipelines can match or beat dedicated bias-mitigation techniques.
  • A positive result would make fairness improvement available earlier in the ML lifecycle, before model training, which is where data-driven bias enters.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implied extension not tested in the report: the same search procedure could be applied to other lifecycle stages, such as in-processing or post-processing, although the report only considers Data Preparation.
  • A testable refinement would normalize each fairness metric before summing, since SPD and EOD are probability differences while DI is a ratio on a different scale; comparing selection stability under normalized versus raw scores would show whether the fitness function is robust.
  • FATE uses fixed equal weights ($\alpha = \beta = 0.5$); exposing the trade-off as a Pareto front of non-dominated pipelines would let practitioners choose their own fairness-performance preference without rerunning the search.
  • Because FATE is agnostic to the classifier and dataset, a natural next test is whether pipelines found on binary classification transfer to regression or multi-class tasks when PR-AUC is replaced with an appropriate performance metric.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This registered report proposes FATE, a genetic algorithm that selects fairness-aware 'Data Preparation' pipelines by optimizing a linear combination of predictive performance (PR-AUC) and a composite fairness score built from SPD, EOD, and DI. The planned study will evaluate FATE's efficacy under different genetic-algorithm parameters (RQ1) and compare FATE-selected pipelines against three pre-processing bias mitigation techniques, FairSMOTE, Reweighing, and Disparate Impact Remover (RQ2), using three datasets, four classifiers, and non-parametric tests with effect sizes. The paper contains no experimental results; it contributes the design of FATE, the experimental protocol, and a threats-to-validity analysis. The central methodological problem is the definition of the fairness score, which treats DI as though its ideal value were 0, so the optimizer is driven toward maximally unfair outcomes.

Significance. If the protocol were corrected, the study would address a practitioner-relevant question: whether common data preparation practices, selected near-optimally, can compete with dedicated bias mitigation pre-processing techniques. The paper's strengths are its registered-report format, the use of widely accepted datasets and classifiers, the planned statistical tests with effect sizes, and the commitment to releasing data and scripts. However, the soundness of the planned experiments depends entirely on the correctness of FATE's fitness function, and the current definition contains a load-bearing error that would invalidate the interpretation of both research questions. The absence of experimental results is expected for a registered report and is not itself a defect; the defect is in the proposed methodology.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section III, Step #2 and Table I] The fairness score FS = |SPD| + |EOD| + |DI| is internally inconsistent because the ideal value of DI is 1, not 0. The text states that 'fairness metrics typically range from -1 to 1, with 0 representing the ideal unbiased value'; this is true for SPD and EOD but false for DI, which is a ratio bounded below by 0 and equals 1 for a perfectly fair model. Since the genetic algorithm maximizes α·PS − β·FS, minimizing FS drives DI toward 0, i.e., toward the maximally discriminatory outcome in which the unprivileged group receives no favorable classifications. For example, a classifier with SPD=0, EOD=0, and DI=1 has FS=1, while a classifier with SPD=-0.1, EOD=-0.1, and DI=0 has FS=0.2 and would be preferred by the optimizer. Thus FATE's search is guided by an objective that rewards unfairness on the DI component, which would invalidate the interpretation of RQ1 and the FATE arm of RQ2.
  2. [Section III, Step #2 and Table I] The fitness function combines PR-AUC, which is bounded in [0,1], with FS, which is unbounded above because DI can exceed 1 and the absolute values of the three metrics are simply summed without normalization. With α=β=0.5, the fairness term can dominate or become negligible depending on the dataset's base rates, so the trade-off parameter does not have the meaning attributed to it. The authors should normalize each component to a common scale, use a weighted sum with justified weights, or empirically validate the chosen formulation; otherwise the fairness-performance trade-off controlled by α and β is not well-defined.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table I] The DI formula contains an unmatched parenthesis: it is written as P(Y=1|A=0))/(P(Y=1|A=1).
  2. [Section IV.B.2 and IV.B.3] The text contains typographical errors: 'sensitive attributes such as age' and sex'' uses stray apostrophes, and 'we plan to ML models to experiment with' is missing an infinitive verb.
  3. [Section IV.C.2] The null hypotheses H3a-H3c concern execution time, but the alternative hypotheses are described only generically; the authors should specify whether the tests are two-sided or whether a directional alternative is intended.
  4. [Section V, Conclusion Validity] The section says the authors will assess the distribution to select the most appropriate test, but the Wilcoxon and Vargha-Delaney tests are already specified; clarify whether the normality check is meant to choose between parametric and non-parametric alternatives.
  5. [Section III, Running Examples] The running examples report FS values but never show the individual SPD, EOD, and DI contributions; a concrete numerical example contrasting a fair model (DI near 1) with an unfair model (DI near 0) would help clarify the intended behavior of the fitness function.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: FATE's empirical comparison is self-contained; minor self-citation in practice selection is not load-bearing.

full rationale

This is a registered report, so the central claims are hypotheses to be tested rather than derived results. The proposed FATE method is an explicit genetic algorithm whose fitness function is fully stated in Table I (PS = PR-AUC, FS = |SPD| + |EOD| + |DI|, fitness = alpha*PS - beta*FS). No fitted constants are hidden, and the planned evaluation compares FATE against external pre-processing baselines (FairSMOTE, Reweighing, Disparate Impact Remover) on standard datasets (German Credit, Heart Disease, Adult). The only self-citations are the authors' own catalog [16] and practitioner survey [17], used to motivate and populate the set of fairness-aware 'Data Preparation' practices. This is not load-bearing: the empirical questions (RQ1 efficacy, RQ2 comparison) are independent tests, and the comparison baselines and datasets come from external work. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported via self-citation, and no known result is merely renamed. A separate validity concern exists: the paper states that fairness metrics 'typically range from -1 to 1, with 0 representing the ideal unbiased value,' which is true for SPD and EOD but false for DI, whose ideal fair value is 1 rather than 0. As written, FS = |SPD| + |EOD| + |DI| would reward driving DI toward 0. This is an internal metric-definition problem and a correctness risk, but it is not a circularity: it does not make the proposed empirical comparison equivalent to its own inputs. Overall, no circular derivation chain was found; the minor self-citation in practice selection warrants only a low score.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The protocol rests on several unstated assumptions: that the selected practices are representative, that the composite fairness score is meaningful, that GA search converges, and that pipeline composition is well-behaved. The most fragile is the additive mixing of ratio and difference fairness metrics.

free parameters (2)
  • alpha (trade-off weight for performance) = 0.5
    Set equal to beta to balance objectives; hand-chosen, not fitted or justified in the paper.
  • beta (trade-off weight for fairness deviation) = 0.5
    Set equal to alpha; no sensitivity analysis is provided.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The six data preparation practices (Standard Scaling, MinMax Scaling, Resampling, Clustering, IPW, Matching) form a representative set of fairness-aware practices.
    Section IV.B.1 lists these practices based on the authors' prior catalog [16], but no evidence is given that this set covers the space of effective practices or that all combinations are valid.
  • domain assumption SPD, EOD, and DI can be combined additively into a single fairness score.
    Table I defines FS = |SPD|+|EOD|+|DI|, mixing difference-based and ratio-based metrics; no normalization or weighting rationale is provided.
  • domain assumption The genetic algorithm with the specified parameter ranges will converge to a near-optimal pipeline.
    Section IV.C.1 specifies the grid but provides no proof or preliminary evidence of convergence for this problem class.
  • domain assumption Applying practices sequentially in a pipeline has a cumulative, order-independent effect on fairness and performance.
    FATE treats practices as genes in a chromosome and applies them in combination, but the protocol does not address interaction or ordering effects.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Data Preparation for Fairness-Performance Trade-Offs: A Practitioner-Friendly Alternative?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S4ZA63I2

@misc{pith2026241215920,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Data Preparation for Fairness-Performance Trade-Offs: A Practitioner-Friendly Alternative?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S4ZA63I2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15920}
}
read the original abstract

As machine learning (ML) systems are increasingly adopted across industries, addressing fairness and bias has become essential. While many solutions focus on ethical challenges in ML, recent studies highlight that data itself is a major source of bias. Pre-processing techniques, which mitigate bias before training, are effective but may impact model performance and pose integration difficulties. In contrast, fairness-aware Data Preparation practices are both familiar to practitioners and easier to implement, providing a more accessible approach to reducing bias. Objective. This registered report proposes an empirical evaluation of how optimally selected fairness-aware practices, applied in early ML lifecycle stages, can enhance both fairness and performance, potentially outperforming standard pre-processing bias mitigation methods. Method. To this end, we will introduce FATE, an optimization technique for selecting 'Data Preparation' pipelines that optimize fairness and performance. Using FATE, we will analyze the fairness-performance trade-off, comparing pipelines selected by FATE with results by pre-processing bias mitigation techniques.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15920 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Research Method. A. Research Questions Our empirical study is organized around two main research questions (RQs). The first RQ focuses on assessing the efficacy of our proposed solution, delving into the fairness￾accuracy trade-off that near-optimal pipelines may retain. We will conduct experiments to observe how FATE will perform under varying conditions, such as population sizes and numbers of generations, and eva… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning,

    N. Mehrabi, F. Morstatter, N. Saxena, K. Lerman, and A. Galstyan, “A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning,” ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 1–35, 2021

    2021

  2. [2]

    Bias and unfairness in machine learning models: a systematic review on datasets, tools, fairness metrics, and identification and mitigation methods,

    T. P. Pagano, R. B. Loureiro, F. V . Lisboa, R. M. Peixoto, G. A. Guimar˜aes, G. O. Cruz, M. M. Araujo, L. L. Santos, M. A. Cruz, E. L. Oliveira et al., “Bias and unfairness in machine learning models: a systematic review on datasets, tools, fairness metrics, and identification and mitigation methods,” Big data and cognitive computing , vol. 7

    work page

  3. [3]

    A review on fairness in machine learning,

    D. Pessach and E. Shmueli, “A review on fairness in machine learning,” ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR)

    work page

  4. [4]

    Machine learning, ethics and law,

    S. Miller, “Machine learning, ethics and law,” Australasian Journal of Information Systems

    work page

  5. [5]

    Bias mitigation for machine learning classifiers: A comprehensive survey,

    M. Hort, Z. Chen, J. M. Zhang, M. Harman, and F. Sarro, “Bias mitigation for machine learning classifiers: A comprehensive survey,” ACM Journal on Responsible Computing , vol. 1, no. 2

    work page

  6. [6]

    Bias in machine learning software: why? how? what to do?

    J. Chakraborty, S. Majumder, and T. Menzies, “Bias in machine learning software: why? how? what to do?” in Proceedings of the 29th ACM ESEC/FSE

    work page

  7. [7]

    Training data debugging for the fairness of machine learning software,

    Y . Li, L. Meng, L. Chen, L. Yu, D. Wu, Y . Zhou, and B. Xu, “Training data debugging for the fairness of machine learning software,” in 2022 IEEE/ACM 44th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Fairness testing: testing software for discrimination,

    S. Galhotra, Y . Brun, and A. Meliou, “Fairness testing: testing software for discrimination,” in Proceedings of the 2017 11th FSE

    work page 2017

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Burkov, Machine learning engineering

    A. Burkov, Machine learning engineering. True Positive Incorporated, 2020, vol. 1

    2020

  2. [10]

    Fair preprocessing: Towards understand- ing compositional fairness of data transformers in machine learning pipeline,

    S. Biswas and H. Rajan, “Fair preprocessing: Towards understand- ing compositional fairness of data transformers in machine learning pipeline,” S. D., Ed. Association for Computing Machinery, Inc

  3. [11]

    The impact of data prepa- ration on the fairness of software systems

    I. Valentim, N. Lourenco, and N. Antunes, “The impact of data prepa- ration on the fairness of software systems.”

  4. [12]

    Data preprocessing techniques for classi- fication without discrimination,

    F. Kamiran and T. Calders, “Data preprocessing techniques for classi- fication without discrimination,” Knowledge and information systems , 2012

    2012

  5. [13]

    Certifying and removing disparate impact,

    M. Feldman, S. A. Friedler, J. Moeller, C. Scheidegger, and S. Venkata- subramanian, “Certifying and removing disparate impact,” in proceed- ings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining

  6. [14]

    Exploring how machine learning practitioners (try to) use fairness toolkits,

    W. H. Deng, M. Nagireddy, M. S. A. Lee, J. Singh, Z. S. Wu, K. Holstein, and H. Zhu, “Exploring how machine learning practitioners (try to) use fairness toolkits,” in 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency , ser. FAccT ’22. ACM, 2022. [Online]. Avail...

    2022

  7. [15]

    The landscape and gaps in open source fairness toolkits,

    M. S. A. Lee and J. Singh, “The landscape and gaps in open source fairness toolkits,” in Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , ser. CHI ’21. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi...

    2021

  8. [16]

    A catalog of fairness-aware practices in machine learning engineering,

    G. V oria, G. Sellitto, C. Ferrara, F. Abate, A. De Lucia, F. Ferrucci, G. Catolino, and F. Palomba, “A catalog of fairness-aware practices in machine learning engineering,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.16683, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Fairness-aware practices from developers’ perspective: A survey,

    ——, “Fairness-aware practices from developers’ perspective: A survey,” Available at SSRN 4949224

  10. [18]

    Raina and S

    V . Raina and S. Krishnamurthy, Data Preparation , 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4842-7419-4 14

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    Fairness per- ceptions of algorithmic decision-making: A systematic review of the empirical literature

    C. Starke, J. Baleis, B. Keller, and F. Marcinkowski, “Fairness per- ceptions of algorithmic decision-making: A systematic review of the empirical literature.”

  12. [20]

    Fairness improvement with multiple protected attributes: How far are we?

    Z. Chen, J. M. Zhang, F. Sarro, and M. Harman, “Fairness improvement with multiple protected attributes: How far are we?” in Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 46th ICSE

  13. [21]

    Software fairness,

    Y . Brun and A. Meliou, “Software fairness,” in Proceedings of the 2018 26th ACM joint meeting on european software engineering conference and symposium on the foundations of software engineering

    2018

  14. [22]

    Ai ethics issues in real world: Evidence from ai incident database,

    M. Wei and Z. Zhou, “Ai ethics issues in real world: Evidence from ai incident database,” 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    Mitigating unwanted biases with adversarial learning,

    B. H. Zhang, B. Lemoine, and M. Mitchell, “Mitigating unwanted biases with adversarial learning,” in Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society

    2018

  16. [24]

    Fairway: a way to build fair ml software,

    J. Chakraborty, S. Majumder, Z. Yu, and T. Menzies, “Fairway: a way to build fair ml software,” in Proceedings of the 28th ACM ESEC/FSE , 2020, pp. 654–665

    2020

  17. [25]

    Automated directed fairness testing,

    S. Udeshi, P. Arora, and S. Chattopadhyay, “Automated directed fairness testing,” in Proceedings of the 33rd ACM/IEEE international conference on automated software engineering

  18. [26]

    Black box fairness testing of machine learning models,

    A. Aggarwal, P. Lohia, S. Nagar, K. Dey, and D. Saha, “Black box fairness testing of machine learning models,” in Proceedings of the 2019 27th ACM ESEC/FSE

    2019

  19. [27]

    White-box fairness testing through adversarial sampling,

    P. Zhang, J. Wang, J. Sun, G. Dong, X. Wang, X. Wang, J. S. Dong, and T. Dai, “White-box fairness testing through adversarial sampling,” in Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE 42nd ICSE

  20. [28]

    Preprocessing matters: Automated pipeline selection for fair classification,

    V . Gonz´alez-Zelaya, J. Salas, D. Prangle, and P. Missier, “Preprocessing matters: Automated pipeline selection for fair classification,” in Inter- national Conference on Modeling Decisions for Artificial Intelligence . Springer

  21. [29]

    Fair enough: Searching for sufficient measures of fairness,

    S. Majumder, J. Chakraborty, G. R. Bai, K. T. Stolee, and T. Menzies, “Fair enough: Searching for sufficient measures of fairness,” ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology

  22. [30]

    A genetic algorithm tutorial,

    D. Whitley, “A genetic algorithm tutorial,” Statistics and computing

  23. [31]

    Choosing mutation and crossover ratios for genetic algorithms—a review with a new dynamic approach,

    A. Hassanat, K. Almohammadi, E. Alkafaween, E. Abunawas, A. Ham- mouri, and V . S. Prasath, “Choosing mutation and crossover ratios for genetic algorithms—a review with a new dynamic approach,” Informa- tion

  24. [32]

    Fae: A fairness-aware ensemble framework

    V . Iosifidis, B. Fetahu, and E. Ntoutsi, “Fae: A fairness-aware ensemble framework.”

  25. [33]

    Towards explaining the effects of data preprocess- ing on machine learning

    C. Gonzalez Zelaya, “Towards explaining the effects of data preprocess- ing on machine learning.” IEEE Computer Society

  26. [34]

    Area under the precision-recall curve: Point estimates and confidence intervals,

    K. Boyd, K. H. Eng, and C. D. Page, “Area under the precision-recall curve: Point estimates and confidence intervals,” in Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases , H. Blockeel, K. Kersting, S. Nijssen, and F. ˇZelezn´y, Eds. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin He...

    2013

  27. [35]

    A few useful things to know about machine learning,

    P. Domingos, “A few useful things to know about machine learning,” Commun. ACM . [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/2347736. 2347755

    doi

  28. [36]

    The precision-recall plot is more informa- tive than the roc plot when evaluating binary classifiers on imbalanced datasets,

    T. Saito and M. Rehmsmeier, “The precision-recall plot is more informa- tive than the roc plot when evaluating binary classifiers on imbalanced datasets,” PloS one, vol. 10, no. 3, p. e0118432, 2015

    2015

  29. [37]

    A reductions approach to fair classification,

    A. Agarwal, A. Beygelzimer, M. Dud ´ık, J. Langford, and H. Wallach, “A reductions approach to fair classification,” in International conference on machine learning

  30. [38]

    Equality of opportunity in supervised learning,

    M. Hardt, E. Price, and N. Srebro, “Equality of opportunity in supervised learning,” Advances in neural information processing systems

  31. [39]

    An ontology for fairness metrics,

    J. S. Franklin, K. Bhanot, M. Ghalwash, K. P. Bennett, J. McCusker, and D. L. McGuinness, “An ontology for fairness metrics,” in Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society

    2022

  32. [40]

    Fairness-aware machine learning engineering: how far are we?

    C. Ferrara, G. Sellitto, F. Ferrucci, F. Palomba, and A. De Lucia, “Fairness-aware machine learning engineering: how far are we?” Em- pirical Software Engineering

  33. [41]

    Fairmask: Better fairness via model-based rebalancing of protected attributes,

    K. Peng, J. Chakraborty, and T. Menzies, “Fairmask: Better fairness via model-based rebalancing of protected attributes,” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering

  34. [42]

    Machine learning and data cleaning: Which serves the other?

    I. Ilyas and T. Rekatsinas, “Machine learning and data cleaning: Which serves the other?” Journal of Data and Information Quality

  35. [43]

    When correla- tion clustering meets fairness constraints,

    F. Gullo, L. La Cava, D. Mandaglio, and A. Tagarelli, “When correla- tion clustering meets fairness constraints,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science

  36. [44]

    Fairness in algorithmic decision making: An excursion through the lens of causality

    A. Khademi, S. Lee, D. Foley, and V . Honavar, “Fairness in algorithmic decision making: An excursion through the lens of causality.” New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3308558.3313559

  37. [45]

    Algorithmic fairness datasets: the story so far,

    A. Fabris, S. Messina, G. Silvello, and G. A. Susto, “Algorithmic fairness datasets: the story so far,” Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, vol. 36, no. 6. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s10618-022-00854-z

  38. [46]

    Ex- amining the impact of bias mitigation algorithms on the sustainability of ml-enabled systems: A benchmark study,

    V . De Martino, G. V oria, C. Troiano, G. Catolino, and F. Palomba, “Ex- amining the impact of bias mitigation algorithms on the sustainability of ml-enabled systems: A benchmark study,” Available at SSRN 4966447

  39. [47]

    Statlog (German Credit Data),

    H. Hofmann, “Statlog (German Credit Data),” UCI Machine Learning Repository, 1994, DOI: https://doi.org/10.24432/C5NC77

    1994 doi

  40. [48]

    Heart Disease,

    A. Janosi, W. Steinbrunn, M. Pfisterer, and R. Detrano, “Heart Disease,” UCI Machine Learning Repository, 1988, DOI: https://doi.org/10.24432/C52P4X

    1988 doi

  41. [49]

    Becker and R

    B. Becker and R. Kohavi, “Adult,” UCI Machine Learning Repository, 1996, DOI: https://doi.org/10.24432/C5XW20

    1996 doi

  42. [50]

    Bias mitigation for machine learning classifiers: A comprehensive survey,

    M. Hort, Z. Chen, J. M. Zhang, M. Harman, and F. Sarro, “Bias mitigation for machine learning classifiers: A comprehensive survey,” ACM J. Responsib. Comput. , vol. 1, no. 2, jun 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3631326

    2024 doi

  43. [51]

    Smote: synthetic minority over-sampling technique,

    N. V . Chawla, K. W. Bowyer, L. O. Hall, and W. P. Kegelmeyer, “Smote: synthetic minority over-sampling technique,” Journal of artificial intel- ligence research

  44. [52]

    W. J. Conover, Practical nonparametric statistics . john wiley & sons

  45. [53]

    A critique and improvement of the cl common language effect size statistics of mcgraw and wong,

    A. Vargha and H. D. Delaney, “A critique and improvement of the cl common language effect size statistics of mcgraw and wong,” Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.