Skip to content
Book Open access

A Systematic Review of Bias Detection and Dataset Improvement Methods for Fair AI Systems

Jul 2026 · SIGSOFT FSE Companion · pp. 1800-1809 · 0 citations · 53 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

The evidence suggests that proactive, iterative approaches incorporating human oversight are essential for mitigating algorithmic discrimination and enhancing the trustworthiness of AI systems, particularly in an era where AI is increasingly widespread.

Abstract

Algorithmic fairness refers to the equitable treatment of users regardless of their identity, demographics, or other personal characteristics, whereas biased AI may produce unfair outcomes when the input data reflect imbalances or underrepresentation of certain groups. This systematic literature review analyzes studies published between 2018 and 2025 that report approaches for handling bias in data and datasets, with particular attention to dataset-centered techniques. We examine how bias is identified, mitigated, and reflected in model outcomes. Our method defines research questions and details the search strategy, study selection procedure, and protocols for data extraction and analysis. The review maps fairness dimensions, the metrics employed, pre-processing and in-processing methods, the role of human participation, observed effects and side effects, and the ethical considerations that inform practice. The evidence suggests that proactive, iterative approaches incorporating human oversight are essential for mitigating algorithmic discrimination and enhancing the trustworthiness of AI systems. Neglecting these considerations risks significant societal harm and the perpetuation of bias against marginalized groups in high-stakes contexts, particularly in an era where AI is increasingly widespread.

Read PDF

Similar papers

#large language models Review Open access Sep 2026

A review of bias detection and fairness auditing techniques in LLMs

A thorough literature review is provided to encapsulate prior research on bias identification and fairness auditing, categorizing the findings according to various stages of study and proposing a unified pipeline for dataset integration and a modular framework for bias auditing.

Nani Kartik Kaveti, T. Pattanshetti · 0 citations
#artificial intelligence Review Aug 2026

Applications of Risk Science to AI Fairness Evaluation: Principles, Challenges, and Best Practices

A literature review of scholarly works purporting to evaluate the bias or fairness of technological systems used for tasks related to hiring and employment finds that most characterize the severity of bias- or fairness-related consequences but do not follow best practices to characterize the uncertainty around either t...

Kyra Wilson, Sa Kang, Saloni Dash et al. · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

Variable Selection in the Context of AI Fairness

The findings suggest that the exclusion of sensitive or critical variables may compromise equity between subgroups and retaining all relevant variables could reduce implicit bias, so the interdisciplinary approach could provide deeper insight into the ethical implications and compliance with regulatory standards.

Ivan Luciano Danesi, Chiara Frigerio, Fabio Maccaferri et al. · 0 citations
Open access Jul 2026

A THREE-STAGE FAIRNESS-AWARE FRAMEWORK FOR RISK ASSESSMENT IN SOCIAL WORK: BALANCING ACCURACY AND EQUITY IN PREDICTIVE MODELS

This study addresses the critical trade-off between predictive accuracy and algorithmic fairness and proposes a “Three-Stage Fairness-Aware Framework” integrating pre-processing, in-processing, and post-processing mitigation strategies that successfully reduced bias to ethical thresholds.

Yih-Chang Chen, Chia-Ching Lin, Sedat Agan · 0 citations
Conference Open access 2026

Bias and Fairness in LLM-Based Recruitment: A Systematic Review

A PRISMA 2020-guided systematic literature review draws on 82 studies selected from 493 records retrieved from Scopus and Web of Science and reveals a structural disconnect in the fairness-in-NLP and HCAI governance literature.

Asmae El Moutafail, Khalid Belkhoutout · 0 citations
Open access Aug 2026

Fairness Evaluation Paradox: How Biased Test Data Masks True Group Fairness Assessment

It is found that a systematic evaluation bias is present across all metrics, so the same models on the same test data can support opposite fairness conclusions and mask the mistreatment of the most disadvantaged groups.

Sašo Karakatič, Ivona Colakovic, Tjaša Heričko · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.