MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414091836 · doi:10.1145/3766890

FairFLRep: Fairness-Aware Fault Localization and Repair of Deep Neural Networks

2025· article· en· W4414091836 on OpenAlexaff
Moses Openja, Paolo Arcaini, Foutse Khomh, Fuyuki Ishikawa

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeep neural networksArtificial neural networkQuality (philosophy)Baseline (sea)Fault (geology)Pattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) are being utilized in various aspects of our daily lives, including high-stakes decision-making applications that impact individuals. However, these systems reflect and amplify bias from the data used during training and testing, potentially resulting in biased behavior and inaccurate decisions, for instance, having different misclassification rates between white and black sub-populations. However, effectively and efficiently identifying and correcting biased behavior in DNNs is a challenge. This article introduces FairFLRep , an automated fairness-aware fault localization and repair technique that identifies and corrects potentially bias-inducing neurons in DNN classifiers. FairFLRep focuses on adjusting neuron weights associated with sensitive attributes, such as race or gender, that contribute to unfair decisions. By analyzing the input–output relationships within the network, FairFLRep corrects neurons responsible for disparities in predictive quality parity. We evaluate FairFLRep on four image classification datasets using two DNN classifiers, and four tabular datasets with a DNN model. The results show that FairFLRep consistently outperforms existing methods in improving fairness while preserving accuracy. An ablation study confirms the importance of considering fairness during both fault localization and repair stages. Our findings also show that FairFLRep is more efficient than the baseline approaches in repairing the network.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM Transactions on Software Engineering and MethodologySame topicAdversarial Robustness in Machine LearningFrench-language works237,207