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

Claire Jie Zhang

dblp:348/7111 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2023
—ORCID · none

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

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 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.

Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper
Data mining · 100%
Theoretical computer science
1 paper
Approximation and online algorithms · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Data mining
clustering
0.712023
Doubly Constrained Fair Clustering · NeurIPS 2023
Data mining › clustering › constrained clustering
fair clustering
0.712023
Doubly Constrained Fair Clustering · NeurIPS 2023
Approximation and online algorithms
approximation algorithms
0.712023
Doubly Constrained Fair Clustering · NeurIPS 2023

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

post-processing · 1.3approximation algorithm · 1.3
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2023 Doubly Constrained Fair Clustering
abstract
The remarkable attention which fair clustering has received in the last few years has resulted in a significant number of different notions of fairness. Despite the fact that these notions are well-justified, they are often motivated and studied in a disjoint manner where one fairness desideratum is considered exclusively in isolation from the others. This leaves the understanding of the relations between different fairness notions as an important open problem in fair clustering. In this paper, we take the first step in this direction. Specifically, we consider the two most prominent demographic representation fairness notions in clustering: (1) Group Fairness ($\textbf{GF}$), where the different demographic groups are supposed to have close to population-level representation in each cluster and (2) Diversity in Center Selection ($\textbf{DS}$), where the selected centers are supposed to have close to population-level representation of each group. We show that given a constant approximation algorithm for one constraint ($\textbf{GF}$ or $\textbf{DS}$ only) we can obtain a constant approximation solution that satisfies both constraints simultaneously. Interestingly, we prove that any given solution that satisfies the $\textbf{GF}$ constraint can always be post-processed at a bounded degradation to the clustering cost to additionally satisfy the $\textbf{DS}$ constraint while the same statement is not true given a solution that satisfies $\textbf{DS}$ instead. Furthermore, we show that both $\textbf{GF}$ and $\textbf{DS}$ are incompatible (having an empty feasibility set in the worst case) with a collection of other distance-based fairness notions. Finally, we carry experiments to validate our theoretical findings.
John Dickerson 0001, Seyed A. Esmaeili, Jamie Morgenstern, Claire Jie Zhang
NeurIPS4