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.
By Thomas Souverain, Paul \'Egr\'e
arXiv:2509. 16462v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in high-stakes decision-making systems, where biased predictions can reinforce social and economic disparities.
By Mina Arzaghi, Alireza Dehghanpour Farashah, Florian Carichon, Jean-Fran\c{c}ois Plante, Golnoosh Farnadi
arXiv:2603. 04689v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Fair top-$k$ selection, which ensures appropriate proportional representation of members from minority or historically disadvantaged groups among the top-$k$ selected candidates, has drawn significant attention.
By Guangya Cai
arXiv:2601. 23221v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As acquiring reliable ground-truth labels is usually costly, or infeasible, crowdsourcing and aggregation of noisy human annotations is the typical resort.
By Gabriel Singer, Samuel Gruffaz, Olivier Vo Van, Nicolas Vayatis, Argyris Kalogeratos
arXiv:2602. 18201v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Unsupervised representations are widely assumed to be neutral with respect to sensitive attributes when those attributes are withheld from training.
By Joseph Bingham, Netanel Arussy, Dvir Aran
arXiv:2607. 14705v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Graph neural networks (GNNs) frequently encounter group fairness issues, often yielding biased predictions against specific demographic groups defined by sensitive attributes such as gender or race.
By Yuchang Zhu, Zezhong Xie, Huizhe Zhang, Huazhen Zhong, Jintang Li, Liang Chen, Zibin Zheng
arXiv:2607. 06603v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The notion of algorithmic fairness has been actively explored from various aspects of fairness, such as counterfactual fairness (CF) and group fairness (GF).
By Sangwon Jung, Sumin Yu, Sanghyuk Chun, Taesup Moon
arXiv:2606. 20461v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Machine learning models have been shown to exhibit discriminatory outcomes or degraded performance for individuals at the intersection of multiple sensitive attributes, such as race and gender.
By Bruno Scarone, Alfredo Viola, Ren\'ee J. Miller
arXiv:2607. 05098v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: When sensitive attributes are continuous and high-dimensional $-$ demographic score vectors, posteriors over attributes, age or income profiles $-$ enforcing full statistical independence is often too restrictive, and existing relaxations rely on indirect dependence penalties or adversarial schemes that do not directly target the fairness-accuracy trade-off.
By Ieva Petrulionyte, Julien Mairal, Michael Arbel
arXiv:2605. 05882v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Artificial-intelligence systems are becoming ubiquitous in society, yet their predictions typically inherit biases with respect to protected attributes such as race, gender, or age.
By Filip Edstr\"om, Guilherme W. F. Barros, Tetiana Gorbach, Xavier de Luna
arXiv:2607. 18119v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Fair clustering aims to make cluster assignments independent of sensitive attributes, but this goal becomes challenging when multiple sensitive attributes jointly define many subgroups.
By Kyungseon Lee, Hankyo Jeong, Kunwoong Kim, Kwanho Lee, Yongdai Kim
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.
By Pengqi Liu, Zijun Yu, Mouloud Belbahri, Arthur Charpentier, Masoud Asgharian, Jesse C. Cresswell