The article discusses how social networks influence decision-making and opportunity distribution, noting that network-generating mechanisms often mirror existing inequalities and can amplify disparities when used in technology. It identifies ten network effects that bias the link between intended measurements and observed data, using academic hiring as a case study to show that network biases can be neither inherently harmful nor beneficial. The authors argue for a comprehensive, networked fairness framework that incorporates both distributive and procedural justice and involves all stakeholders.
arXiv:2607. 17679v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: This is an invited commentary on the Psychometrika focus article "Fairness Issues and Evaluation in Psychometrics and AI/ML: What Can We Learn from Each Field?
arXiv:2606. 26200v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Modern machine learning systems have outgrown their origins as isolated predictive constructs, evolving into complex socio-technical architectures that actively mediate human opportunity.
arXiv:2508. 08337v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Algorithmic fairness research has largely framed unfairness as discrimination along sensitive attributes.
arXiv:2608. 09899v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In fair ranked link prediction, demographic parity ($\Delta_\mathrm{DP}$) is a common fairness metric.
arXiv:2608. 19381v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Network embedding methods learn low-dimensional representations of graph-structured data to support downstream tasks such as node classification, link prediction, and influence maximization.
arXiv:2602. 16794v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Conformal prediction (CP) offers distribution-free uncertainty quantification for machine learning models, yet its interplay with fairness in downstream decision-making remains underexplored.
Despite groundbreaking advancements in generative models during the last decade, concerns about their lack of fairness, reinforcing societal inequalities and harming marginalized groups, remain under-...
The paper argues that fairness failures in generative models arise mainly from inadequate evaluation practices, making fairness findings hard to compare or use for deployment. It diagnoses common empirical and conceptual shortcomings in current methods and calls for a move toward standardized, generative‑specific evaluation. The authors introduce Fairness Cards, a minimal reporting artifact that explicitly documents evaluation choices—such as prompt families, counterfactual protocols, metrics, and refusal handling—to improve reproducibility, comparability, and accountability.
arXiv:2407. 14766v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: This paper presents a philosophical and experimental study of fairness interventions in AI classification, centered on the explainability and transparency of corrective methods, and on the opposition between two fairness criteria, namely Demographic Parity and Equalized Odds.
arXiv:2604. 16610v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Machine learning models often inherit biases from historical data, raising critical concerns about fairness and accountability.
arXiv:2608. 11251v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Fairness in AI systems has become more important with recent regulatory demands, such as the EU AI Act.
The paper argues that traditional probabilistic fairness metrics can miss significant disparities in the actual consequences of decisions. By introducing a utility-based framework, the authors show that a process can satisfy ε-fairness yet still be maximally unfair when utilities are considered. They apply this framework to college admissions and credit‑risk assessment, demonstrating that equalizing probabilities alone may mask unequal utility outcomes across groups.