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

Mary Versa Clemens-Sewall

dblp:392/6697 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
—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.

Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Trustworthy machine learning · 100%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning
fairness
0.912025
Multiaccuracy and Multicalibration via Proxy Groups · ICML 2025
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › fairness › fairness criteria
multicalibration
0.912025
Multiaccuracy and Multicalibration via Proxy Groups · ICML 2025
Machine learning › Trustworthy machine learning › fairness › algorithmic fairness
fairness without sensitive attributes
0.312025
Multiaccuracy and Multicalibration via Proxy Groups · ICML 2025

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

upper bounds on fairness violations · 0.9proxy-sensitive attributes · 0.9
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 Multiaccuracy and Multicalibration via Proxy Groups
abstract
As the use of predictive machine learning algorithms increases in high-stakes decision-making, it is imperative that these algorithms are fair across sensitive groups. However, measuring and enforcing fairness in real-world applications can be challenging due to missing or incomplete sensitive group information. Proxy-sensitive attributes have been proposed as a practical and effective solution in these settings, but only for parity-based fairness notions. Knowing how to evaluate and control for fairness with missing sensitive group data for newer, different, and more flexible frameworks, such as multiaccuracy and multicalibration, remains unexplored. In this work, we address this gap by demonstrating that in the absence of sensitive group data, proxy-sensitive attributes can provably be used to derive actionable upper bounds on the true multiaccuracy and multicalibration violations, providing insights into a predictive model’s potential worst-case fairness violations. Additionally, we show that adjusting models to satisfy multiaccuracy and multicalibration across proxy-sensitive attributes can significantly mitigate these violations for the true, but unknown, sensitive groups. Through several experiments on real-world datasets, we illustrate that approximate multiaccuracy and multicalibration can be achieved even when sensitive group data is incomplete or unavailable.
Beepul Bharti, Mary Versa Clemens-Sewall, Paul H. Yi, Jeremias Sulam
ICML2