Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Claire Jie Zhang
dblp:348/7111
· DBLP profile ↗
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
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Data mining
clustering |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Doubly Constrained Fair Clustering · NeurIPS 2023 |
Data mining › clustering › constrained clustering
fair clustering |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Doubly Constrained Fair Clustering · NeurIPS 2023 |
Approximation and online algorithms
approximation algorithms |
0.7 | 1 | 2023 | Doubly Constrained Fair Clustering · NeurIPS 2023 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
post-processing · 1.3approximation algorithm · 1.3
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | Doubly Constrained Fair ClusteringabstractThe 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 |
NeurIPS | 4 |