mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Ensuring Fairness with Transparent Auditing of Quantitative Bias in AI Systems

arXiv 2409.06708 ↗First posted 24 Aug 2024cs.CY cs.AI cs.HCcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

With the rapid advancement of AI, there is a growing trend to integrate AI into decision-making processes. However, AI systems may exhibit biases that lead decision-makers to draw unfair conclusions. Notably, the COMPAS system used in the American justice system to evaluate recidivism was found to favor racial majority groups; specifically, it violates a fairness standard called equalized odds. Various measures have been proposed to assess AI fairness. We present a framework for auditing AI fairness, involving third-party auditors and AI system providers, and we have created a tool to facilitate systematic examination of AI systems. The tool is open-sourced and publicly available. Unlike traditional AI systems, we advocate a transparent white-box and statistics-based approach. It can be utilized by third-party auditors, AI developers, or the general public for reference when judging the fairness criterion of AI systems.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 6 of its 15 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Aug 2024.

Builds on

6 of 15 references.

References · 6

  1. 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,007
  2. 2014Certifying and removing disparate impactcited by 715
  3. 2016Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instrumentscited by 672
  4. 2016Inherent Trade-Offs in the Fair Determination of Risk Scorescited by 586
  5. 2017Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairnesscited by 403
  6. 2017Fairness in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments: The State of the Artcited by 315

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 1.

3 papers.