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.
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· Discover Artificial Intellig...· 0 citations
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
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
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· Far East Journal of Electron...· 0 citations
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· EPJ Web of Conferences· 0 citations
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.