Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

Software Engineering for Fairness: A Case Study with Hyperparameter Optimization

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 1905.05786 v2 pith:THXTZ4QA submitted 2019-05-14 cs.SE cs.LG

classification cs.SEcs.LG
keywords softwarediscriminationdecisionsengineersfairerfairnesshyperparameteroptimization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

We assert that it is the ethical duty of software engineers to strive to reduce software discrimination. This paper discusses how that might be done. This is an important topic since machine learning software is increasingly being used to make decisions that affect people's lives. Potentially, the application of that software will result in fairer decisions because (unlike humans) machine learning software is not biased. However, recent results show that the software within many data mining packages exhibits "group discrimination"; i.e. their decisions are inappropriately affected by "protected attributes"(e.g., race, gender, age, etc.). There has been much prior work on validating the fairness of machine-learning models (by recognizing when such software discrimination exists). But after detection, comes mitigation. What steps can ethical software engineers take to reduce discrimination in the software they produce? This paper shows that making \textit{fairness} as a goal during hyperparameter optimization can (a) preserve the predictive power of a model learned from a data miner while also (b) generates fairer results. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first application of hyperparameter optimization as a tool for software engineers to generate fairer software.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. From Bias To Improved Prompts: A Case Study of Bias Mitigation of Clone Detection Models

    cs.SE 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Prompt bias lessons derived from an LLM's own error explanations improve its clone detection F1 score by up to 10.81% on two benchmarks.

  2. Addressing Popularity Bias in Third-Party Library Recommendations Using LLMs

    cs.SE 2025-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Open-source Llama models fail to overcome popularity bias in third-party library recommendations, with low recall across all six tested configurations.

  3. Whence Is A Model Fair? Fixing Fairness Bugs via Propensity Score Matching

    cs.LG 2025-04 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    The paper claims fairness metrics are strongly affected by test-set sampling and proposes FairMatch, a matching plus threshold-shift method to locate and fix fairness bugs, but the matching is not true propensity scor...

  4. Software Engineering Principles for Fairer Systems: Experiments with GroupCART

    cs.LG 2025-04 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    GroupCART trains decision trees with weighted fairness and accuracy split criteria, selects the Pareto-best models on validation, and combines their votes to reduce bias in predictions.

Pith tools