Systematic Review

Fairness and Bias in Artificial Intelligence: A Brief Survey of

Sources, Impacts, and Mitigation Strategies
Emilio Ferrara

Thomas Lord Department of Computer Science, USC Viterbi School of Engineering, University of Southern
California, Los Angeles, CA 90007, USA; [email protected]

Abstract: The significant advancements in applying artificial intelligence (AI) to healthcare decision-
making, medical diagnosis, and other domains have simultaneously raised concerns about the
fairness and bias of AI systems. This is particularly critical in areas like healthcare, employment,
criminal justice, credit scoring, and increasingly, in generative AI models (GenAI) that produce
synthetic media. Such systems can lead to unfair outcomes and perpetuate existing inequalities,
including generative biases that affect the representation of individuals in synthetic data. This survey
study offers a succinct, comprehensive overview of fairness and bias in AI, addressing their sources,
impacts, and mitigation strategies. We review sources of bias, such as data, algorithm, and human
decision biases—highlighting the emergent issue of generative AI bias, where models may reproduce
and amplify societal stereotypes. We assess the societal impact of biased AI systems, focusing on
perpetuating inequalities and reinforcing harmful stereotypes, especially as generative AI becomes
more prevalent in creating content that influences public perception. We explore various proposed
mitigation strategies, discuss the ethical considerations of their implementation, and emphasize
the need for interdisciplinary collaboration to ensure effectiveness. Through a systematic literature
review spanning multiple academic disciplines, we present definitions of AI bias and its different
types, including a detailed look at generative AI bias. We discuss the negative impacts of AI bias on
individuals and society and provide an overview of current approaches to mitigate AI bias, including
data pre-processing, model selection, and post-processing. We emphasize the unique challenges
presented by generative AI models and the importance of strategies specifically tailored to address
these. Addressing bias in AI requires a holistic approach involving diverse and representative
datasets, enhanced transparency and accountability in AI systems, and the exploration of alternative
Citation: Ferrara, E. Fairness and Bias
in Artificial Intelligence: A Brief
AI paradigms that prioritize fairness and ethical considerations. This survey contributes to the
Survey of Sources, Impacts, and ongoing discussion on developing fair and unbiased AI systems by providing an overview of the
Mitigation Strategies. Sci 2024, 6, 3. sources, impacts, and mitigation strategies related to AI bias, with a particular focus on the emerging
https://doi.org/10.3390/sci6010003 field of generative AI.

Academic Editor: João Manuel R.

Keywords: artificial intelligence; bias; fairness; discrimination; mitigation strategies
S. Tavares

Received: 8 September 2023

Revised: 12 December 2023
Accepted: 14 December 2023 1. Introduction
Published: 26 December 2023
The growing use of AI systems has intensified discussions around fairness and bias in
artificial intelligence as potential biases and discrimination become more apparent. This
survey examines the sources, impacts, and mitigation strategies related to fairness and
Copyright: © 2023 by the author. bias in AI. Multiple studies have identified biases against certain groups in AI systems,
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. such as the facial recognition systems studied by Buolamwini and Gebru [1] and hiring
This article is an open access article algorithms examined by Dastin [2]. These biases can perpetuate systemic discrimination
distributed under the terms and and inequality, with detrimental effects on individuals and communities in areas like hiring,
conditions of the Creative Commons lending, and criminal justice [3–7].
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// Researchers and practitioners have proposed various mitigation strategies, such as
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ improving data quality [8] and designing explicitly fair algorithms [9–11].
4.0/).

Sci 2024, 6, 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/sci6010003 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sci

Sci 2024, 6, 3 2 of 15

This study provides a comprehensive overview of the sources and impacts of bias in
AI, examining data, algorithmic, and user biases, along with their ethical implications. It
surveys current research on mitigation strategies, discussing their challenges, limitations,
and the significance of interdisciplinary collaboration.
The importance of fairness and bias in AI is widely recognized by researchers, policy-
makers, and the academic community [1,12–16]. This survey study delves into the complex
and multifaceted issues surrounding fairness and bias in AI, covering the sources of bias,
their impacts, and proposed mitigation strategies. Overall, the study aims to contribute to
ongoing efforts to develop more responsible and ethical AI systems by shedding light on
the sources, impacts, and mitigation strategies of fairness and bias in AI.

2. Sources of Bias in AI
Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to revolutionize many industries and
improve people’s lives in countless ways. However, one of the major challenges facing
the development and deployment of AI systems is the presence of bias. Bias refers to the
systematic errors that occur in decision-making processes, leading to unfair outcomes. In
the context of AI, bias can arise from various sources, including data collection, algorithm
design, and human interpretation. Machine learning models, which are a type of AI system,
can learn and replicate patterns of bias present in the data used to train them, resulting in
unfair or discriminatory outcomes. In this section, we will explore the different sources
of bias in AI, including data bias, algorithmic bias, and user bias, and examine real-world
examples of their impact.

2.1. Definition of Bias in AI and Its Different Types

Bias is defined as a systematic error in decision-making processes that results in unfair
outcomes. In the context of AI, bias can arise from various sources, including data collection,
algorithm design, and human interpretation. Machine learning models, a type of AI system,
can learn and replicate patterns of bias present in the data used to train them, resulting in
unfair or discriminatory outcomes. It is important to identify and address bias in AI to
ensure that these systems are fair and equitable for all users. In the next sections, we will
explore the sources, impacts, and mitigation strategies of bias in AI in more detail.

2.2. Sources of Bias in AI, including Data Bias, Algorithmic Bias, and User Bias
Sources of bias in AI can arise from different stages of the machine learning pipeline,
including data collection, algorithm design, and user interactions. This survey discusses
the different sources of bias in AI and provides examples of each type, including data bias,
algorithmic bias, and user bias [17,18].
Data bias occurs when the data used to train machine learning models are unrepresen-
tative or incomplete, leading to biased outputs. This can happen when the data are collected
from biased sources or when the data are incomplete, missing important information, or
contain errors. Algorithmic bias, on the other hand, occurs when the algorithms used in
machine learning models have inherent biases that are reflected in their outputs. This can
happen when algorithms are based on biased assumptions or when they use biased criteria
to make decisions. User bias occurs when the people using AI systems introduce their
own biases or prejudices into the system, consciously or unconsciously. This can happen
when users provide biased training data or when they interact with the system in ways
that reflect their own biases.
To mitigate these sources of bias, various approaches have been proposed, including
dataset augmentation, bias-aware algorithms, and user feedback mechanisms. Dataset
augmentation involves adding more diverse data to training datasets to increase repre-
sentativeness and reduce bias. Bias-aware algorithms involve designing algorithms that
consider different types of bias and aim to minimize their impact on the system’s outputs.
User feedback mechanisms involve soliciting feedback from users to help identify and
correct biases in the system.
Sci 2024, 6, 3 3 of 15

Research in this area is ongoing, with new approaches and techniques being developed
to address bias in AI systems. It is important to continue to investigate and develop these
approaches to create AI systems that are more equitable and fairer for all users.

2.3. Real-World Examples of Bias in AI

There have been numerous examples of bias in AI systems across various industries,
from healthcare to criminal justice. One well-known example is the COMPAS system used
in the United States criminal justice system, which predicts the likelihood of a defendant
reoffending. A study by ProPublica found that the system was biased against African-
American defendants, as they were more likely to be labeled as high-risk even if they had
no prior convictions. Another study found similar biases in a similar system used in the
state of Wisconsin [19].
In healthcare, an AI system used to predict patient mortality rates was found to be
biased against African-American patients. A study conducted by Obermeyer et al. [20]
found that the system was more likely to assign higher-risk scores to African-American
patients, even when other factors, such as age and health status, were the same. This
bias can lead to African-American patients being denied access to healthcare or receiving
subpar treatment.
Another example of bias in AI systems is the facial recognition technology used by
law enforcement agencies. A study by the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) found that facial recognition technology was significantly less accurate for people
with darker skin tones, leading to higher rates of false positives [16]. This bias can have
serious consequences, such as wrongful arrests or convictions.
Finally, with the rise in generative AI systems (GenAI), the risk of harmful biases
increases [14,21,22]. A striking instance of GenAI bias was reported, where text-to-image
models like StableDiffusion, OpenAI’s DALL-E, and Midjourney exhibited racial and
stereotypical biases in their outputs [23].
When prompted to generate images of CEOs, these models predominantly produced
images of men, reflecting gender bias. This bias mirrors the underrepresentation of women
in CEO positions in the real world. Furthermore, when prompted to generate images of
criminals or terrorists, the models’ output overwhelmingly more people of color.
This incident underscores the risk of generative AI perpetuating societal biases. GenAI
models trained on internet-sourced images likely suffer from this bias, as the data mir-
rored existing disparities. This example highlights the critical need for diverse and bal-
anced training datasets in AI development to ensure fair and representative outputs from
generative models.
Table 1 illustrates examples of different types of biases and the serious consequences
of such bias in AI systems, emphasizing the need for careful evaluation and mitigation
strategies to address such biases.

Table 1. Characterizing different types of AI biases.

Type of Bias Description Examples

Occurs when the training data are not representative of the
A facial recognition algorithm trained mostly on white
Sampling Bias population they serve, leading to poor performance and
individuals that performs poorly on people of other races.
biased predictions for certain groups.
Results from the design and implementation of the
An algorithm that prioritizes age or gender, leading to
Algorithmic Bias algorithm may prioritize certain attributes and lead to
unfair outcomes in hiring decisions.
unfair outcomes.
Happens when a dataset does not accurately represent the
A medical dataset that under-represents women, leading to
Representation Bias population it is meant to model, leading to
less accurate diagnosis for female patients.
inaccurate predictions.
Materializes when an AI system is used to confirm An AI system that predicts job candidates’ success based
Confirmation Bias
pre-existing biases or beliefs held by its creators or users. on biases held by the hiring manager.
Emerges when data collection or measurement A survey collecting more responses from urban residents,
Measurement Bias
systematically over- or under-represents certain groups. leading to an under-representation of rural opinions.
Sci 2024, 6, 3 4 of 15

Table 1. Cont.

Type of Bias Description Examples

Occurs when an AI system interacts with humans in a A chatbot that responds differently to men and women,
Interaction Bias
biased manner, resulting in unfair treatment. resulting in biased communication.
A text generation model trained predominantly on the
Occurs in generative AI models, like those used for
literature from Western authors may over-represent
creating synthetic data, images, or text. Generative bias
Western cultural norms and idioms, under-representing or
emerges when the model’s outputs disproportionately
Generative Bias misrepresenting other cultures. Similarly, an image
reflect specific attributes, perspectives, or patterns present
generation model trained on datasets with limited diversity
in the training data, leading to skewed or unbalanced
in human portraits may struggle to accurately represent a
representations in generated content.
broad range of ethnicities.

3. Impacts of Bias in AI
The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) has brought numerous benefits,
but it also comes with potential risks and challenges. One of the key concerns is the negative
impacts of bias in AI on individuals and society. Bias in AI can perpetuate and even amplify
existing inequalities, leading to discrimination against marginalized groups and limiting
their access to essential services. In addition to perpetuating gender stereotypes and
discrimination, it can also lead to new forms of discrimination based on skin color, ethnicity,
or physical appearance. To ensure that AI systems are fair and equitable and serve the
needs of all users, it is crucial to identify and mitigate bias in AI. Moreover, the use of
biased AI has numerous ethical implications, including the potential for discrimination,
the responsibility of developers and policymakers, undermining public trust in technology,
and limiting human agency and autonomy. Addressing these ethical implications will
require a concerted effort from all stakeholders involved, and it is important to develop
ethical guidelines and regulatory frameworks that promote fairness, transparency, and
accountability in the development and use of AI systems.

3.1. Negative Impacts of Bias in AI on Individuals and Society, Including Discrimination and
Perpetuation of Existing Inequalities
The negative impacts of bias in AI can be significant, affecting individuals and society.
Discrimination is a key concern when it comes to biased AI systems, as they can perpetuate
and even amplify existing inequalities [24]. For example, biased algorithms used in the
criminal justice system can lead to unfair treatment of certain groups, particularly people
of color, who are more likely to be wrongly convicted or receive harsher sentences [1].
Bias in AI can also have a negative impact on an individual’s access to essential services,
such as healthcare and finance. Biased algorithms can lead to the underrepresentation of
certain groups, such as people of color or those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, in
credit scoring systems, making it harder for them to access loans or mortgages [25].
Furthermore, bias in AI can also perpetuate gender stereotypes and discrimination.
For instance, facial recognition algorithms trained on data primarily consisting of men
can struggle to recognize female faces accurately, perpetuating gender bias in security
systems [1]. When generative AI (GenAI) models are prompted to create images of CEOs,
they tend to reinforce stereotypes by depicting CEOs predominantly as men [23].
In addition to perpetuating existing inequalities, bias in AI can also lead to new forms
of discrimination, such as those based on skin color, ethnicity, or even physical appearance.
The same GenAI models that exhibit gender bias, perhaps unsurprisingly, also portray
criminals or terrorists as people of color.
The public deployment of these systems can lead to serious consequences, such as
denial of services, job opportunities, or even wrongful arrests or convictions. The risk is
twofold: on an individual level, it affects people’s perception of themselves and others,
potentially influencing their opportunities and interactions.
On a societal level, the widespread use of such biased AI systems can entrench discrim-
inatory narratives and hinder efforts toward equality and inclusivity. As AI becomes more
integrated into our daily lives, the potential for such technology to shape cultural norms
Sci 2024, 6, 3 5 of 15

and social structures becomes more significant, making it imperative to address these biases
in the developmental stages of AI systems to mitigate their harmful impacts [14,21,22].

3.2. Discussion of the Ethical Implications of Biased AI

The use of biased AI has numerous ethical implications that must be considered. One
of the main concerns is the potential for discrimination against individuals or groups based
on factors such as race, gender, age, or disability [7]. When AI systems are biased, they can
perpetuate existing inequalities and reinforce discrimination against marginalized groups.
This is especially concerning in sensitive areas such as healthcare, where biased AI systems
can lead to unequal access to treatment or harm patients [25].
Another ethical concern is the responsibility of developers, companies, and gov-
ernments to ensure that AI systems are designed and used in a fair and transparent
manner. If an AI system is biased and produces discriminatory outcomes, the responsi-
bility lies not only with the system itself but also with those who created and deployed
it [23]. As such, it is crucial to establish ethical guidelines and regulatory frameworks that
hold those responsible for the development and use of AI systems accountable for any
discriminatory outcomes.
Moreover, the use of biased AI systems may undermine public trust in technology,
leading to decreased adoption and even rejection of new technologies. This can have
serious economic and social implications, as the potential benefits of AI may not be realized
if people do not trust the technology or if it is seen as a tool for discrimination.
Finally, it is important to consider the impact of biased AI on human agency and
autonomy. When AI systems are biased, they can limit individual freedoms and reinforce
societal power dynamics. For example, an AI system used in a hiring process may dispro-
portionately exclude candidates from marginalized groups, limiting their ability to access
employment opportunities and contribute to society.
Addressing the ethical implications of biased AI will require a concerted effort from
all stakeholders involved, including developers, policymakers, and society at large. It
will be necessary to develop ethical guidelines and regulatory frameworks that promote
fairness, transparency, and accountability in the development and use of AI systems [26].
Additionally, it will be important to engage in critical discussions about the impact of
AI on society and to empower individuals to participate in shaping the future of AI in a
responsible and ethical manner.

4. Mitigation Strategies for Bias in AI

Researchers and practitioners have proposed various approaches to mitigate bias in
AI. These approaches include pre-processing data, model selection, and post-processing
decisions. However, each approach has its limitations and challenges, such as the lack of
diverse and representative training data, the difficulty of identifying and measuring differ-
ent types of bias, and the potential trade-offs between fairness and accuracy. Additionally,
there are ethical considerations around how to prioritize different types of bias and which
groups to prioritize in the mitigation of bias.
Despite these challenges, mitigating bias in AI is essential for creating fair and equi-
table systems that benefit all individuals and society. Ongoing research and development
of mitigation approaches are necessary to overcome these challenges and ensure that AI
systems are used for the benefit of all.

4.1. Overview of Current Approaches to Mitigate Bias in AI, Including Pre-Processing Data,
Model Selection, and Post-Processing Decisions
Mitigating bias in AI is a complex and multifaceted challenge. However, several
approaches have been proposed to address this issue. One common approach is to pre-
process the data used to train AI models to ensure that they are representative of the entire
population, including historically marginalized groups. This can involve techniques such
as oversampling, undersampling, or synthetic data generation [14]. For example, a study
Sci 2024, 6, 3 6 of 15

by Buolamwini and Gebru [1] demonstrated that oversampling darker-skinned individuals

improved the accuracy of facial recognition algorithms for this group. Pre-processing data
involves identifying and addressing biases in the data before the model is trained. This
can be performed through techniques such as data augmentation, which involves creating
synthetic data points to increase the representation of underrepresented groups, or through
adversarial debiasing, which involves training the model to be resilient to specific types of
bias [11]. Documenting such dataset biases and augmentation procedures is of paramount
importance [27–29].
Another approach to mitigate bias in AI is to carefully select the models used to analyze
the data. Researchers have proposed using model selection methods that prioritize fairness,
such as those based on group fairness [11] or individual fairness [30]. For example, a
study by Kamiran and Calders [31] proposed a method for selecting classifiers that achieve
demographic parity, ensuring that the positive and negative outcomes are distributed
equally across different demographic groups. Another approach is to use model selection
techniques that prioritize fairness and mitigate bias. This can be performed through
techniques such as regularization, which penalizes models for making discriminatory
predictions, or through ensemble methods, which combine multiple models to reduce
bias [25].
Post-processing decisions are another approach to mitigate bias in AI. This involves
adjusting the output of AI models to remove bias and ensure fairness. For example,
researchers have proposed post-processing methods that adjust the decisions made by a
model to achieve equalized odds, which ensures that false positives and false negatives are
equally distributed across different demographic groups [11].
While these approaches hold promise for mitigating bias in AI, they also have lim-
itations and challenges. For example, pre-processing data can be time-consuming and
may not always be effective, especially if the data used to train models are already biased.
Additionally, model selection methods may be limited by the lack of consensus on what con-
stitutes fairness, and post-processing methods can be complex and require large amounts
of additional data [32]. Therefore, it is crucial to continue exploring and developing new
approaches to mitigate bias in AI.
In the realm of generative AI, addressing bias is even more challenging as it requires a
holistic strategy [14,21,22]. This begins with the pre-processing of data to ensure diversity
and representativeness. This involves the deliberate collection and inclusion of varied
data sources that reflect the breadth of human experience, thus preventing the overrep-
resentation of any single demographic in training datasets. Model selection must then
prioritize algorithms that are transparent and capable of detecting when they are generating
biased outputs. Techniques such as adversarial training, where models are continually
tested against scenarios designed to reveal bias, can be beneficial. Post-processing involves
critically assessing the AI-generated content and, if necessary, adjusting the outputs to
correct for biases. This might include using additional filters or transfer learning techniques
to refine the models further. Regular audits, continuous monitoring, and the incorpora-
tion of feedback loops are essential to ensure that generative AI systems remain fair and
equitable over time. These efforts must be underpinned by a commitment to ethical AI prin-
ciples, actively engaging diverse teams in AI development, and fostering interdisciplinary
collaboration to address and mitigate AI bias effectively.
Furthermore, implementing these approaches requires careful consideration of ethical
and societal implications. For example, adjusting the model’s predictions to ensure fairness
may result in trade-offs between different forms of bias and may have unintended conse-
quences on the distribution of outcomes for different groups [4–6,22]. Table 2 illustrates
examples of such strategies, their challenges and limitations.

4.2. Discussion of the Limitations and Challenges of These Approaches

While various approaches have been proposed to address bias in AI, they also have
their limitations and challenges.
Sci 2024, 6, 3 7 of 15

Table 2. Different approaches to AI bias mitigation and associated challenges.

Limitations and
Approach Description Examples Ethical Considerations
Challenges
Involves identifying and 1. Oversampling 1. Potential for over- or
addressing biases in the data darker-skinned underrepresentation of
before training the model. individuals in a facial certain groups in the data,
1. Time-consuming
Techniques such as recognition dataset [1]. which can perpetuate
process.
oversampling, undersampling, 2. Data augmentation to existing biases or create
2. May not always be
Pre-processing Data or synthetic data generation increase representation in new ones.
effective, especially if the
are used to ensure the data are underrepresented groups. 2. Privacy concerns related
data used to train models
representative of the entire 3. Adversarial debiasing to data collection and
are already biased.
population, including to train the model to be usage, particularly for
historically marginalized resilient to specific types historically
groups. of bias [33]. marginalized groups.
Focuses on using model 1. Selecting classifiers that
selection methods that achieve demographic
prioritize fairness. Researchers parity [31]. 1. Balancing fairness with
have proposed methods based 2. Using model selection other performance metrics,
on group fairness or methods based on group such as accuracy
individual fairness. fairness [11] or individual Limited by the possible or efficiency.
Model Selection Techniques include fairness [30]. lack of consensus on what 2. Potential for models to
regularization, which 3. Regularization to constitutes fairness. reinforce existing
penalizes models for making penalize discriminatory stereotypes or biases if
discriminatory predictions, predictions. fairness criteria are not
and ensemble methods, which 4. Ensemble methods to carefully considered.
combine multiple models to combine multiple models
reduce bias. and reduce bias [34].
Involves adjusting the output
of AI models to remove bias
1. Trade-offs between
and ensure fairness.
different forms of bias
Researchers have proposed
when adjusting
methods that adjust the Post-processing methods Can be complex and
Post-processing predictions for fairness.
decisions made by a model to that achieve equalized require large amounts of
Decisions 2. Unintended
achieve equalized odds, odds [11]. additional data [32].
consequences on the
ensuring that false positives
distribution of outcomes
and false negatives are equally
for different groups.
distributed across different
demographic groups.

One of the main challenges is the lack of diverse and representative training data.
As mentioned earlier, data bias can lead to biased outputs from AI systems. However,
collecting diverse and representative data can be challenging, especially when dealing
with sensitive or rare events. Additionally, there may be privacy concerns when collecting
certain types of data, such as medical records or financial information. These challenges
can limit the effectiveness of dataset augmentation as a mitigation approach.
Another challenge is the difficulty of identifying and measuring different types of bias
in AI systems. Algorithmic bias can be difficult to detect and quantify, especially when the
algorithms are complex or opaque. Additionally, the sources of bias may be difficult to
isolate, as bias can arise from multiple sources, such as the data, the algorithm, and the user.
This can limit the effectiveness of bias-aware algorithms and user feedback mechanisms as
mitigation approaches.
Moreover, mitigation approaches may introduce trade-offs between fairness and
accuracy. For example, one approach to reducing algorithmic bias is to modify the algorithm
to ensure that it treats all groups equally. However, this may result in reduced accuracy
for certain groups or in certain contexts. Achieving both fairness and accuracy can be
challenging and requires careful consideration of the trade-offs involved.
Finally, there may be ethical considerations around how to prioritize different types of
bias and which groups to prioritize in the mitigation of bias. For example, should more
attention be paid to bias that affects historically marginalized groups, or should all types
of bias be given equal weight? These ethical considerations can add complexity to the
development and implementation of bias mitigation approaches.
Sci 2024, 6, 3 8 of 15

Despite these challenges, addressing bias in AI is crucial for creating fair and equitable
systems. Ongoing research and development of mitigation approaches are necessary to
overcome these challenges and to ensure that AI systems are used for the benefit of all
individuals and society.

5. Fairness in AI
Fairness in AI is a critical topic that has received a lot of attention in both academic
and industry circles. At its core, fairness in AI refers to the absence of bias or discrimination
in AI systems, which can be challenging to achieve due to the different types of bias that
can arise in these systems. There are several types of fairness proposed in the literature,
including group fairness, individual fairness, and counterfactual fairness. While fairness
and bias are closely related concepts, they differ in important ways, including that fairness
is inherently a deliberate and intentional goal, while bias can be unintentional. Achieving
fairness in AI requires careful consideration of the context and stakeholders involved.
Real-world examples of fairness in AI demonstrate the potential benefits of incorporating
fairness into AI systems.

5.1. Definition of Fairness in AI and Its Different Types

Fairness in AI is a complex and multifaceted concept that has been the subject of much
debate in both the academic and industry communities. At its core, fairness refers to the
absence of bias or discrimination in AI systems [26]. However, achieving fairness in AI can
be challenging, as it requires careful consideration of the different types of bias that can
arise in these systems and the ways in which they can be mitigated.
There are several different types of fairness that have been proposed in the literature,
including group fairness, individual fairness, and counterfactual fairness [30].
Group fairness refers to ensuring that different groups are treated equally or pro-
portionally in AI systems. This can be further subdivided into different types, such as
demographic parity, which ensures that the positive and negative outcomes are distributed
equally across different demographic groups [31], a notion of unfairness, disparate mistreat-
ment, defined in terms of misclassification rates [30], or equal opportunity, which ensures
that the true positive rate (sensitivity) and false positive rate (1-specificity) are equal across
different demographic groups [11].
Individual fairness, on the other hand, refers to ensuring that similar individuals
are treated similarly by AI systems, regardless of their group membership. This can be
achieved through methods such as similarity-based or distance-based measures, which aim
to ensure that individuals who are similar in terms of their characteristics or attributes are
treated similarly by the AI system [34].
Counterfactual fairness is a more recent concept that aims to ensure that AI systems
are fair even in hypothetical scenarios. Specifically, counterfactual fairness aims to ensure
that an AI system would have made the same decision for an individual, regardless of their
group membership, even if their attributes had been different [35].
Other types of fairness include procedural fairness, which involves ensuring that the
process used to make decisions is fair and transparent, and causal fairness, which involves
ensuring that the system does not perpetuate historical biases and inequalities [4–6].
It is important to note that these different types of fairness are not mutually exclusive
and may overlap in practice. Additionally, different types of fairness may conflict with
each other, and trade-offs may need to be made to achieve fairness in specific contexts [26].
It is important to note that achieving fairness in AI is not a one-size-fits-all solution and
requires careful consideration of the context and stakeholders involved. Achieving fairness
in AI systems often requires a nuanced understanding of these different types of fairness
and the ways in which they can be balanced and prioritized in different contexts.
Sci 2024, 6, 3 9 of 15

5.2. Comparison of Fairness and Bias in AI

While fairness and bias are closely related concepts, they differ in important ways.
Bias refers to the systematic and consistent deviation of an algorithm’s output from the
true value or from what would be expected in the absence of bias [36]. On the other hand,
fairness in AI refers to the absence of discrimination or favoritism towards any individual
or group based on protected characteristics such as race, gender, age, or religion [25].
One key difference between fairness and bias is that while bias can be unintentional,
fairness is inherently a deliberate and intentional goal. Bias can arise due to various factors,
such as biased data or algorithmic design, but fairness requires a conscious effort to ensure
that the algorithm does not discriminate against any group or individual. In other words,
bias can be viewed as a technical issue, while fairness is a social and ethical issue [26].
Another difference is that bias can be either positive or negative, whereas fairness is
only concerned with negative bias or discrimination [36]. Positive bias occurs when an
algorithm systematically favors a particular group or individual, while negative bias occurs
when the algorithm systematically discriminates against a particular group or individual.
In contrast, fairness is concerned with preventing negative bias or discrimination towards
any group or individual.
Despite these differences, fairness and bias are often closely related, and addressing
bias is an important step toward achieving fairness in AI. For example, addressing bias in
training data or algorithms can help reduce the likelihood of unfair outcomes. However, it
is important to recognize that bias is not the only factor that can lead to unfairness, and
achieving fairness may require additional efforts beyond bias mitigation [27].
Overall, understanding the differences between fairness and bias is important for
developing effective strategies to mitigate bias and ensure fairness in AI systems (see
Table 3). By acknowledging these differences and designing algorithms and systems that
prioritize fairness, we can ensure that AI systems are used to benefit all individuals and
groups without perpetuating or exacerbating existing social and economic inequalities.

Table 3. Characterizing different types of AI fairness definitions.

Type of Fairness Description Examples

1. Demographic parity: Positive and negative
outcomes distributed equally across demographic
Ensures that different groups are treated groups [31].
equally or proportionally in AI systems. Can 2. Disparate mistreatment: Defined in terms of
Group Fairness
be further subdivided into demographic parity, misclassification rates [30].
disparate mistreatment, or equal opportunity. 3. Equal opportunity: True positive rate (sensitivity)
and false positive rate (1-specificity) are equal across
different demographic groups [11].
Ensures that similar individuals are treated
similarly by AI systems, regardless of their Using similarity-based or distance-based measures to
Individual Fairness group membership. Can be achieved through ensure that individuals with similar characteristics or
methods such as similarity-based or attributes are treated similarly by the AI system [25].
distance-based measures.
Aims to ensure that AI systems are fair, even in
hypothetical scenarios. Specifically,
counterfactual fairness aims to ensure that an Ensuring that an AI system would make the same
Counterfactual
AI system would have made the same decision decision for an individual, even if their attributes had
Fairness
for an individual, regardless of their group been different [35].
membership, even if their attributes had
been different.
Involves ensuring that the process used to Implementing a transparent decision-making process
Procedural Fairness
make decisions is fair and transparent. in AI systems.
Involves ensuring that the system does not Developing AI systems that avoid perpetuating
Causal Fairness
perpetuate historical biases and inequalities. historical biases and inequalities [4–6].
Sci 2024, 6, 3 10 of 15

5.3. Real-World Examples of Fairness in AI

There have been various real-world examples of fairness in AI that demonstrate the
potential benefits of incorporating fairness into AI systems. One example is the COMPAS
(Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions) system, which is
used to predict the likelihood of recidivism in criminal defendants. Research has shown
that the system was biased against African-American defendants, as it was more likely to
falsely predict that they would re-offend compared to white defendants [19]. To address
this issue, the Northpointe COMPAS was modified to include a “race-neutral” version of
the algorithm that achieved similar accuracy while reducing racial bias [19].
Another example is the use of AI in the recruitment process. Research has shown
that AI recruitment systems can be biased against women, as they may be less likely to
be selected for male-dominated roles [26]. To address this issue, some companies have
implemented “gender decoder” tools that analyze job postings and suggest changes to
reduce gender bias [17,37].
A third example is the use of AI in healthcare. Research has shown that AI systems
used to predict healthcare outcomes can be biased against certain groups, such as African
Americans [25]. To address this issue, researchers have proposed using techniques such as
subgroup analysis to identify and address bias in the data used to train AI models [11].
These real-world examples demonstrate the potential benefits of incorporating fairness
into AI systems. By addressing bias and ensuring fairness, AI systems can be more accurate,
ethical, and equitable and can help to promote social justice and equality.

6. Mitigation Strategies for Fairness in AI

As the use of artificial intelligence (AI) continues to grow, ensuring fairness in its
decision-making is becoming increasingly important. The use of AI in critical domains
such as healthcare, finance, and law has the potential to significantly impact people’s lives,
and therefore, it is crucial that these systems make fair and unbiased decisions. To address
this challenge, various approaches have been developed, including group fairness and
individual fairness. However, these approaches are not without limitations and challenges,
such as trade-offs between different types of fairness and the difficulty of defining fairness
itself. In this section, we will explore mitigation strategies for fairness in AI, including
current approaches, challenges, and areas for future research. By developing a better
understanding of these mitigation strategies, we can work towards creating AI systems
that are fair, unbiased, and equitable for all.

6.1. Overview of Current Approaches to Ensure Fairness in AI, including Group Fairness and
Individual Fairness
Ensuring fairness in AI is a complex and evolving field, with various approaches being
developed to address different aspects of fairness. Two key approaches that have emerged
are group fairness and individual fairness.
Group fairness is concerned with ensuring that AI systems are fair to different groups
of people, such as people of different genders, races, or ethnicities. Group fairness aims
to prevent the AI system from systematically discriminating against any group. This
can be achieved through various techniques such as re-sampling, pre-processing, or post-
processing of the data used to train the AI model. For example, if an AI model is trained
on data that are biased toward a particular group, re-sampling techniques can be used to
create a balanced dataset where each group is represented equally. Other techniques, such
as pre-processing or post-processing, can be used to adjust the output of the AI model to
ensure that it does not unfairly disadvantage any group. Corbett-Davies and collaborators
introduced risk-minimization approaches aimed at minimizing disparities [27,28].
Individual fairness, on the other hand, is concerned with ensuring that AI systems
are fair to individuals, regardless of their group membership. Individual fairness aims to
prevent the AI system from making decisions that are systematically biased against certain
individuals. Individual fairness can be achieved through techniques such as counterfactual
Sci 2024, 6, 3 11 of 15

fairness or causal fairness. For example, counterfactual fairness aims to ensure that the AI
model would have made the same decision for an individual, regardless of race or gender.
While group fairness and individual fairness are important approaches to ensuring
fairness in AI, they are not the only ones. Other approaches include transparency, account-
ability, and explainability. Transparency involves making the AI system’s decision-making
process visible to users, while accountability involves holding the system’s developers
responsible for any harm caused by the system. Explainability involves making the AI
system’s decisions understandable to users [26,38].
Overall, ensuring fairness in AI is a complex and ongoing challenge that requires a
multi-disciplinary approach involving experts from fields such as computer science, law,
ethics, and social science. By developing and implementing a range of approaches to
ensure fairness, we can work towards creating AI systems that are unbiased, transparent,
and accountable.

6.2. Discussion of the Limitations and Challenges of These Approaches

While these approaches have shown promising results in promoting fairness in AI,
they are not without limitations and challenges. One major limitation is the potential for
trade-offs between different types of fairness. For example, group fairness approaches
may result in unequal treatment of individuals within a group, while individual fairness
approaches may not address systemic biases that affect entire groups [26]. Additionally,
it may be difficult to determine which types of fairness are most appropriate for a given
context and how to balance them appropriately [4–6].
Another challenge is the difficulty of defining fairness itself. Different people and
groups may have different definitions of fairness, and these definitions may change over
time [39]. This can make it challenging to develop AI systems that are considered fair by
all stakeholders.
Furthermore, many of the current approaches to ensuring fairness in AI rely on
statistical methods and assumptions that may not accurately capture the complexity of
human behavior and decision-making. For example, group fairness metrics may not
consider intersectionality or the ways in which different dimensions of identity (such as
race, gender, and socioeconomic status) interact and affect outcomes [40].
Finally, there are concerns about the potential for unintended consequences and
harmful outcomes resulting from attempts to ensure fairness in AI. For example, some
researchers have found that attempts to mitigate bias in predictive policing algorithms may
increase racial disparities in arrests [34]. Table 4 summarizes these strategies.

Table 4. Different approaches to guarantee AI fairness and the associated challenges.

Approach Description Examples Limitations and Challenges

Ensures that AI systems are fair to
1. May result in unequal
different groups of people, such as
treatment of individuals within
people of different genders, races, or 1. Re-sampling techniques to
a group.
ethnicities. Aims to prevent the AI create a balanced dataset.
2. May not address systemic
Group Fairness system from systematically 2. Pre-processing or
biases that affect
discriminating against any group. Can post-processing to adjust AI
individual characteristics.
be achieved through techniques such model output.
3. Group fairness metrics may not
as re-sampling, pre-processing, or
consider intersectionality.
post-processing the data.
Ensures that AI systems are fair to
individuals, regardless of their group 1. May not address systemic
membership. Aims to prevent the AI biases that affect entire groups.
1. Counterfactual fairness
system from making decisions that are 2. Difficulty determining which
Individual Fairness ensuring the same decision
systematically biased against certain types of fairness are appropriate
regardless of race or gender.
individuals. Can be achieved through for a given context and how to
techniques such as counterfactual balance them.
fairness or causal fairness.
Sci 2024, 6, 3 12 of 15

Table 4. Cont.

Approach Description Examples Limitations and Challenges

Involves making the AI system’s Making AI system’s decisions and Different definitions of fairness
Transparency decision-making process visible processes understandable among people and groups and
to users. to users. changing definitions over time.
Involves holding the system’s Developers held responsible for
Determining responsibility and
Accountability developers responsible for any harm unfair decisions made by
addressing potential harm.
caused by the system. AI systems.
Addressing the complexity of
Involves making the AI system’s Providing clear explanations of AI
Explainability human behavior and
decisions understandable to users. system’s decisions.
decision-making.
Intersectionality (not Considers the ways in which different Addressing the complexity of
Developing AI systems that
explicitly mentioned as an dimensions of identity (such as race, intersectionality and ensuring
consider the interaction of
approach, but it is an aspect gender, and socioeconomic status) fairness across multiple
different dimensions of identity.
to consider) interact and affect outcomes. dimensions of identity.

Despite these challenges, the development of fair and equitable AI is an important

and ongoing area of research. Future work will need to address these challenges and
continue to develop new approaches that are sensitive to the nuances of fairness and equity
in different contexts.

7. Conclusions
In conclusion, this paper has illuminated the various sources of biases in AI and
ML systems and their profound societal impact, with an extended discussion on the
emergent concerns surrounding generative AI bias [41]. It is clear that these powerful
computational tools, if not diligently designed and audited, have the potential to perpetuate
and even amplify existing biases, particularly those related to race, gender, and other
societal constructs [40–43]. We have considered numerous examples of biased AI systems,
with a particular focus on the intricacies of generative AI, which illustrates the critical need
for comprehensive strategies to identify and mitigate biases across the entire spectrum of
the AI development pipeline [44–48].
To combat bias, this paper has highlighted strategies such as robust data augmentation,
the application of counterfactual fairness, and the imperative for diverse, representative
datasets alongside unbiased data collection methods [49–51]. We also considered the ethical
implications of AI in preserving privacy and the necessity for transparency, oversight, and
continuous evaluation of AI systems [52–54].
As we look to the future, research in fairness and bias in AI and ML should prioritize
the diversification of training data and address the nuanced challenges of bias in generative
models, especially those used for synthetic data creation and content generation. It is im-
perative to develop comprehensive frameworks and guidelines for responsible AI and ML,
which include transparent documentation of training data, model choices, and generative
processes. Diversifying the teams involved in AI development and evaluation is equally
crucial, as it brings a multiplicity of perspectives that can better identify and correct for
biases [55–57].
Lastly, the establishment of robust ethical and legal frameworks governing AI and
ML systems is paramount, ensuring that privacy, transparency, and accountability are not
afterthoughts but foundational elements of the AI development lifecycle [35]. Research
must also explore the implications of generative AI, ensuring that as we advance in creating
ever more sophisticated synthetic realities, we remain vigilant and proactive in safeguard-
ing against the subtle encroachment of biases that could shape society in unintended and
potentially harmful ways.
Sci 2024, 6, 3 13 of 15

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments: The author is indebted to all current and past members of his lab at USC,
core researchers and visiting students at ISI, collaborators, and coauthors of work related to AI
and fairness.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

References
1. Buolamwini, J.; Gebru, T. Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. In Proceedings
of the 1st Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency, New York, NY, USA, 23–24 February 2018; pp. 77–91.
2. Dastin, J. Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women. In Ethics of Data and Analytics; Auerbach
Publications: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2018; pp. 296–299.
3. Eubanks, V. Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor; St. Martin’s Press: New York, NY,
USA, 2018.
4. Kleinberg, J.; Lakkaraju, H.; Leskovec, J.; Ludwig, J.; Mullainathan, S. Human decisions and machine predictions. Q. J. Econ. 2018,
133, 237–293. [PubMed]
5. Kleinberg, J.; Ludwig, J.; Mullainathan, S.; Sunstein, C.R. Discrimination in the Age of Algorithms. J. Leg. Anal. 2018, 10, 113–174.
[CrossRef]
6. Kleinberg, J.; Ludwig, J.; Mullainathan, S.; Rambachan, A. Algorithmic fairness. AEA Pap. Proc. 2018, 108, 22–27. [CrossRef]
7. O’Neil, C. Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy; Broadway Books: New York,
NY, USA, 2016.
8. Asan, O.; Bayrak, A.E.; Choudhury, A. Artificial intelligence and human trust in healthcare: Focus on clinicians. J. Med. Internet
Res. 2020, 22, e15154. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9. Berk, R.; Heidari, H.; Jabbari, S.; Kearns, M.; Roth, A. Fairness in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments: The State of the Art. Sociol.
Methods Res. 2018, 47, 175–210. [CrossRef]
10. Friedler, S.A.; Scheidegger, C.; Venkatasubramanian, S.; Choudhary, S.; Hamilton, E.P.; Roth, D. A comparative study of fairness-
enhancing interventions in machine learning. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency,
Atlanta, GA, USA, 29–31 January 2019; pp. 329–338.
11. Yan, S.; Kao, H.T.; Ferrara, E. Fair class balancing: Enhancing model fairness without observing sensitive attributes. In
Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management, Online, 26 June–31 July 2020;
pp. 1715–1724.
12. Caliskan, A.; Bryson, J.J.; Narayanan, A. Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biases.
Science 2017, 356, 183–186. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. European Commission. Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI. Commission Communication. 2019. Available online: https:
//op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/d3988569-0434-11ea-8c1f-01aa75ed71a1 (accessed on 15 December 2023).
14. Ferrara, E. Should ChatGPT be Biased? Challenges and Risks of Bias in Large Language Models. First Monday 2023, 28.
15. Kleinberg, J.; Mullainathan, S.; Raghavan, M. Inherent trade-offs in the fair determination of risk scores. In Proceedings of the
Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science (ITCS), Berkeley, CA, USA, 9–11 January 2017.
16. Schwartz, R.; Vassilev, A.; Greene, K.; Perine, L.; Burt, A.; Hall, P. Towards a Standard for Identifying and Managing Bias in Artificial
Intelligence; NIST Special Publication: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2022; Volume 1270, pp. 1–77.
17. Crawford, K.; Calo, R. There is a blind spot in AI research. Nature 2016, 538, 311–313. [CrossRef]
18. Selbst, A.D.; Boyd, D.; Friedler, S.A.; Venkatasubramanian, S.; Vertesi, J. Fairness and abstraction in sociotechnical systems. In
Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, Atlanta, GA, USA, 29–31 January 2019; pp. 59–68.
19. Angwin, J.; Larson, J.; Mattu, S.; Kirchner, L. Machine bias. In Ethics of Data and Analytics; Auerbach Publications: Boca Raton, FL,
USA, 2016; pp. 254–264.
20. Obermeyer, Z.; Powers, B.; Vogeli, C.; Mullainathan, S. Dissecting racial bias in an algorithm used to manage the health of
populations. Science 2019, 366, 447–453. [CrossRef]
21. Ferrara, E. GenAI against humanity: Nefarious applications of generative artificial intelligence and large language models. arXiv
2023, arXiv:2310.00737. [CrossRef]
22. Ferrara, E. The butterfly effect in artificial intelligence systems: Implications for AI bias and fairness. arXiv 2023, arXiv:2307.05842.
[CrossRef]
23. Mittelstadt, B.D.; Allo, P.; Taddeo, M.; Wachter, S.; Floridi, L. The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data Soc. 2016,
3, 2053951716679679. [CrossRef]
24. Sweeney, L. Discrimination in online ad delivery. Commun. ACM 2013, 56, 44–54. [CrossRef]
25. Dwork, C.; Hardt, M.; Pitassi, T.; Reingold, O.; Zemel, R. Fairness through awareness. In Proceedings of the 3rd Innovations in
Theoretical Computer Science Conference, Cambridge, MA, USA, 8–10 January 2012; pp. 214–226.
26. Ananny, M.; Crawford, K. Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic
accountability. New Media Soc. 2018, 20, 973–989. [CrossRef]
Sci 2024, 6, 3 14 of 15

27. Corbett-Davies, S.; Pierson, E.; Feller, A.; Goel, S.; Huq, A. Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairness. In Proceedings
of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Halifax, NS, Canada, 13–17
August 2017; pp. 797–806.
28. Corbett-Davies, S.; Goel, S. The measure and mismeasure of fairness: A critical review of fair machine learning. arXiv 2018,
arXiv:1808.00023.
29. Gebru, T.; Morgenstern, J.; Vecchione, B.; Vaughan, J.W.; Wallach, H.; Iii, H.D.; Crawford, K. Datasheets for datasets. Commun.
ACM 2021, 64, 86–92. [CrossRef]
30. Zafar, M.B.; Valera, I.; Gomez Rodriguez, M.; Gummadi, K.P. Fairness beyond disparate treatment & disparate impact: Learning
classification without disparate mistreatment. In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web, Perth,
Australia, 3–7 May 2017; pp. 1171–1180.
31. Kamiran, F.; Calders, T. Data preprocessing techniques for classification without discrimination. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 2012, 33, 1–33.
[CrossRef]
32. Barocas, S.; Selbst, A.D. Big data’s disparate impact. Calif. Law Rev. 2016, 104, 671–732. [CrossRef]
33. Bolukbasi, T.; Chang, K.W.; Zou, J.Y.; Saligrama, V.; Kalai, A.T. Man is to computer programmer as woman is to homemaker?
Debiasing word embeddings. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 2016, 29, 4349–4357.
34. Ferguson, A.G. Predictive policing and reasonable suspicion. Emory LJ 2012, 62, 259. [CrossRef]
35. Wachter, S.; Mittelstadt, B.; Russell, C. Counterfactual explanations without opening the black box: Automated decisions and the
GDPR. Harv. J. Law Technol. 2018, 31, 841–887. [CrossRef]
36. Žliobaitė, I. Measuring discrimination in algorithmic decision making. Data Min. Knowl. Discov. 2017, 31, 1060–1089. [CrossRef]
37. Crawford, K.; Paglen, T. Excavating AI: The politics of images in machine learning training sets. AI Soc. 2021, 36, 1105–1116.
[CrossRef]
38. Donovan, J.; Caplan, R.; Matthews, J.; Hanson, L. Algorithmic Accountability: A Primer; Data & Society: New York, NY, USA, 2018.
39. Ezzeldin, Y.H.; Yan, S.; He, C.; Ferrara, E.; Avestimehr, S. Fairfed: Enabling group fairness in federated learning. In Proceedings of
the AAAI 2023—37th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Washington, DC, USA, 7–14 February 2023.
40. Crenshaw, K. Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist
theory and antiracist politics. In Feminist Legal Theories; Routledge: London, UK, 1989; pp. 23–51.
41. Nicoletti, L.; Bass, D. Humans Are Biased: Generative AI Is Even Worse. Bloomberg Technology + Equality, 23 June 2023.
42. Cirillo, D.; Catuara-Solarz, S.; Morey, C.; Guney, E.; Subirats, L.; Mellino, S.; Gigante, A.; Valencia, A.; Rementeria, M.J.;
Chadha, A.S.; et al. Sex and gender differences and biases in artificial intelligence for biomedicine and healthcare. NPJ Digit. Med.
2020, 3, 81. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
43. Noble, S.U. Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism; NYU Press: New York, NY, USA, 2018.
44. Chouldechova, A. Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments. Big Data 2017,
5, 153–163. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
45. Huang, J.; Galal, G.; Etemadi, M.; Vaidyanathan, M. Evaluation and mitigation of racial bias in clinical machine learning models:
Scoping review. JMIR Med. Inform. 2022, 10, e36388. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
46. Park, J.; Arunachalam, R.; Silenzio, V.; Singh, V.K. Fairness in Mobile Phone-Based Mental Health Assessment Algorithms:
Exploratory Study. JMIR Form. Res. 2022, 6, e34366. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
47. Ricci Lara, M.A.; Echeveste, R.; Ferrante, E. Addressing fairness in artificial intelligence for medical imaging. Nat. Commun. 2022,
13, 4581. [CrossRef]
48. Yan, S.; Huang, D.; Soleymani, M. Mitigating biases in multimodal personality assessment. In Proceedings of the 2020 International
Conference on Multimodal Interaction, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 25–29 October 2020; pp. 361–369.
49. Chouldechova, A.; Roth, A. The frontiers of fairness in machine learning. arXiv 2018, arXiv:1810.08810.
50. Mehrabi, N.; Morstatter, F.; Saxena, N.; Lerman, K.; Galstyan, A. A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning. ACM Comput.
Surv. (CSUR) 2021, 54, 1–35. [CrossRef]
51. Verma, S.; Rubin, J. Fairness definitions explained. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Software Fairness, Gothen-
burg, Sweden, 29 May 2018; pp. 1–7.
52. Lipton, Z.C. The mythos of model interpretability: In machine learning, the concept of interpretability is both important and
slippery. Queue 2018, 16, 31–57. [CrossRef]
53. Mitchell, M.; Wu, S.; Zaldivar, A.; Barnes, P.; Vasserman, L.; Hutchinson, B.; Spitzer, E.; Raji, I.D.; Gebru, T. Model cards for model
reporting. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, Atlanta, GA, USA, 29–31 January
2019; pp. 220–229.
54. Raji, I.D.; Buolamwini, J. Actionable auditing: Investigating the impact of publicly naming biased performance results of
commercial AI products. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, Atlanta, GA, USA,
29–31 January 2019; pp. 77–86.
55. Chauhan, P.S.; Kshetri, N. The Role of Data and Artificial Intelligence in Driving Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. Computer 2022,
55, 88–93. [CrossRef]
Sci 2024, 6, 3 15 of 15

56. Holstein, K.; Wortman Vaughan, J.; Daumé, H., III; Dudik, M.; Wallach, H. Improving fairness in machine learning systems: What
do industry practitioners need? In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Glasgow,
UK, 4–9 May 2019; pp. 1–16.
57. Stathoulopoulos, K.; Mateos-Garcia, J.C.; Owen, H. Gender Diversity in AI Research. 2019. Available online: https://www.nesta.
org.uk/report/gender-diversity-ai/ (accessed on 15 December 2023).

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.