Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Ranit Debnath Akash
dblp:424/9586
· DBLP profile ↗
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
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › interpretability › explainable AI
explanation methods |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Uncovering Discrimination Clusters: Quantifying and Explaining Systematic Fairness Violations · ASE 2025 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
fairness |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Uncovering Discrimination Clusters: Quantifying and Explaining Systematic Fairness Violations · ASE 2025 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › fairness
individual fairness |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Uncovering Discrimination Clusters: Quantifying and Explaining Systematic Fairness Violations · ASE 2025 |
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
interpretability |
0.9 | 1 | 2025 | Uncovering Discrimination Clusters: Quantifying and Explaining Systematic Fairness Violations · ASE 2025 |
Program verification › decision procedure
satisfiability modulo theories |
0.3 | 1 | 2025 | 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
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | Uncovering Discrimination Clusters: Quantifying and Explaining Systematic Fairness ViolationsabstractFairness 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 |
ASE | 1 |