From Bias to Balance: Fairness-Aware Paper Recommendation for Equitable Peer Review

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.22438v1
• Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2026 21:57:07 GMT
• Title: From Bias to Balance: Fairness-Aware Paper Recommendation for Equitable Peer Review
• Authors: Uttamasha Anjally Oyshi, Susan Gauch,
• Abstract summary: We propose a framework for post-review paper selection that preserves, and in some settings can even enhance, measured scholarly quality.<n>By first analyzing the behavior of the fairness parameters under controlled conditions and then validating them on real submissions, Fair-PaperRec offers a practical, equity-focused framework for post-review paper selection that preserves, and in some settings can even enhance, measured scholarly quality.
• Score: 1.9029881798999504
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Despite frequent double-blind review, systemic biases related to author demographics still disadvantage underrepresented groups. We start from a simple hypothesis: if a post-review recommender is trained with an explicit fairness regularizer, it should increase inclusion without degrading quality. To test this, we introduce Fair-PaperRec, a Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP) with a differentiable fairness loss over intersectional attributes (e.g., race, country) that re-ranks papers after double-blind review. We first probe the hypothesis on synthetic datasets spanning high, moderate, and near-fair biases. Across multiple randomized runs, these controlled studies map where increasing the fairness weight strengthens macro/micro diversity while keeping utility approximately stable, demonstrating robustness and adaptability under varying disparity levels. We then carry the hypothesis into the original setting, conference data from ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction (SIGCHI), Designing Interactive Systems (DIS), and Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI). In this real-world scenario, an appropriately tuned configuration of Fair-PaperRec achieves up to a 42.03% increase in underrepresented-group participation with at most a 3.16% change in overall utility relative to the historical selection. Taken together, the synthetic-to-original progression shows that fairness regularization can act as both an equity mechanism and a mild quality regularizer, especially in highly biased regimes. By first analyzing the behavior of the fairness parameters under controlled conditions and then validating them on real submissions, Fair-PaperRec offers a practical, equity-focused framework for post-review paper selection that preserves, and in some settings can even enhance, measured scholarly quality.

Related papers

• The Unfairness of Multifactorial Bias in Recommendation [68.35079031029616]
  Popularity bias and positivity bias are prominent sources of bias in recommender systems.<n>In this work, we examine how multifactorial bias influences item-side fairness.<n>We adapt a percentile-based rating transformation as a pre-processing strategy to mitigate multifactorial bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-19T08:37:43Z)
• When Are Learning Biases Equivalent? A Unifying Framework for Fairness, Robustness, and Distribution Shift [0.0]
  Machine learning systems exhibit diverse failure modes: unfairness toward protected groups, brittleness to spurious correlations, poor performance on minority sub-populations.<n>We propose a unifying theoretical framework that characterizes when different bias mechanisms produce quantitatively equivalent effects on model performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-09T20:48:09Z)
• Whence Is A Model Fair? Fixing Fairness Bugs via Propensity Score Matching [0.49157446832511503]
  We investigate whether the way training and testing data are sampled affects the reliability of fairness metrics.<n>Since training and test sets are often randomly sampled from the same population, bias present in the training data may still exist in the test data.<n>We propose FairMatch, a post-processing method that applies propensity score matching to evaluate and mitigate bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-23T19:28:30Z)
• Towards Large Language Models that Benefit for All: Benchmarking Group Fairness in Reward Models [16.977176752570617]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly powerful and accessible to human users.<n> Ensuring fairness across diverse demographic groups, i.e., group fairness, is a critical ethical concern.<n>This work benchmarks the group fairness of learned reward models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-10T19:39:39Z)
• Identifying and Mitigating Social Bias Knowledge in Language Models [52.52955281662332]
  We propose a novel debiasing approach, Fairness Stamp (FAST), which enables fine-grained calibration of individual social biases.<n>FAST surpasses state-of-the-art baselines with superior debiasing performance.<n>This highlights the potential of fine-grained debiasing strategies to achieve fairness in large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-07T17:14:58Z)
• Fairness under Covariate Shift: Improving Fairness-Accuracy tradeoff with few Unlabeled Test Samples [21.144077993862652]
  We operate in the unsupervised regime where only a small set of unlabeled test samples along with a labeled training set is available. We experimentally verify that optimizing with our loss formulation outperforms a number of state-of-the-art baselines. We show that our proposed method significantly outperforms them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-11T14:39:51Z)
• Fair-CDA: Continuous and Directional Augmentation for Group Fairness [48.84385689186208]
  We propose a fine-grained data augmentation strategy for imposing fairness constraints. We show that group fairness can be achieved by regularizing the models on transition paths of sensitive features between groups. Our proposed method does not assume any data generative model and ensures good generalization for both accuracy and fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-01T11:23:00Z)
• DualFair: Fair Representation Learning at Both Group and Individual Levels via Contrastive Self-supervision [73.80009454050858]
  This work presents a self-supervised model, called DualFair, that can debias sensitive attributes like gender and race from learned representations. Our model jointly optimize for two fairness criteria - group fairness and counterfactual fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-15T07:13:54Z)
• On Comparing Fair Classifiers under Data Bias [42.43344286660331]
  We study the effect of varying data biases on the accuracy and fairness of fair classifiers. Our experiments show how to integrate a measure of data bias risk in the existing fairness dashboards for real-world deployments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-12T13:04:46Z)
• Learning Informative Representation for Fairness-aware Multivariate Time-series Forecasting: A Group-based Perspective [50.093280002375984]
  Performance unfairness among variables widely exists in multivariate time series (MTS) forecasting models. We propose a novel framework, named FairFor, for fairness-aware MTS forecasting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-27T04:54:12Z)
• How Robust is Your Fairness? Evaluating and Sustaining Fairness under Unseen Distribution Shifts [107.72786199113183]
  We propose a novel fairness learning method termed CUrvature MAtching (CUMA) CUMA achieves robust fairness generalizable to unseen domains with unknown distributional shifts. We evaluate our method on three popular fairness datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-04T02:37:50Z)
• Normalise for Fairness: A Simple Normalisation Technique for Fairness in Regression Machine Learning Problems [46.93320580613236]
  We present a simple, yet effective method based on normalisation (FaiReg) for regression problems. We compare it with two standard methods for fairness, namely data balancing and adversarial training. The results show the superior performance of diminishing the effects of unfairness better than data balancing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-02T12:26:25Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.