Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Ranit Debnath Akash

dblp:424/9586 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
—ORCID · unresolved

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Trustworthy machine learning · 100%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Program verification · 100%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability › explainable AI
explanation methods
0.912025
Uncovering Discrimination Clusters: Quantifying and Explaining Systematic Fairness Violations · ASE 2025
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
fairness
0.912025
Uncovering Discrimination Clusters: Quantifying and Explaining Systematic Fairness Violations · ASE 2025
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › fairness
individual fairness
0.912025
Uncovering Discrimination Clusters: Quantifying and Explaining Systematic Fairness Violations · ASE 2025
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability
0.912025
Uncovering Discrimination Clusters: Quantifying and Explaining Systematic Fairness Violations · ASE 2025
Program verification › decision procedure
satisfiability modulo theories
0.312025
Uncovering Discrimination Clusters: Quantifying and Explaining Systematic Fairness Violations · ASE 2025

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

randomized search · 1.7decision tree · 1.7SMT solver · 1.7MILP solver · 1.7
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Uncovering Discrimination Clusters: Quantifying and Explaining Systematic Fairness Violations
abstract
Fairness in algorithmic decision-making is often framed in terms of individual fairness, which requires that similar individuals receive similar outcomes. A system violates individual fairness if there exists a pair of inputs differing only in protected attributes (such as race or gender) that lead to significantly different outcomes—for example, one favorable and the other unfavorable. While this notion highlights isolated instances of unfairness, it fails to capture broader patterns of clustered discrimination that may affect entire subgroups.We introduce and motivate the concept of discrimination clustering, a generalization of individual fairness violations. Rather than detecting single counterfactual disparities, we seek to uncover regions of the input space where small perturbations in protected features lead to k-significantly distinct clusters of outcomes. That is, for a given input, we identify a local neighborhood—differing only in protected attributes—whose members’ outputs separate into many distinct clusters. These clusters reveal significant arbitrariness in treatment solely based on protected attributes, exposing patterns of algorithmic bias that elude pairwise fairness checks.We present HyFair, a hybrid technique that combines formal symbolic analysis (via SMT and MILP solvers) to certify individual fairness with randomized search to discover discriminatory clusters. This combination enables both formal guarantees— when no counterexamples exist—and the detection of severe violations that are computationally challenging for symbolic methods alone. Given a set of inputs exhibiting high k-discrimination, we further introduce a novel explanation method that generates interpretable, decision-tree-style artifacts.Our experiments show that HyFair outperforms state-of-the-art fairness verification and local explanation methods. It reveals that some benchmarks exhibit substantial discrimination clustering, while others show limited or no disparities with respect to protected attributes. It also provides intuitive explanations that support understanding and mitigation of unfairness.
Ranit Debnath Akash, Verya Monjezi, Ashutosh Trivedi 0001, Gang Tan, Saeid Tizpaz-Niari
ASE1