pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.12421 · v1 · pith:F3YJGYLInew · submitted 2026-05-08 · 💻 cs.CY · cs.HC

Navigating the muddy waters of bias in artificial intelligence research: Understanding divergent meanings and conceptions

Mohammad Hossein Jarrahi , Amir Karami , Patrick Conway , Ali Memariani , Christoph Lutz This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-30 22:54 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CY cs.HC
keywords AI biastopic modelingconceptual analysisresearch communitysociotechnical systemsethical considerationsstatistical parametersdivergent conceptions
0
0 comments X

The pith

Topic modeling of 6520 AI papers shows the community holds divergent and sometimes contradictory conceptions of bias.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Researchers analyzed 6520 articles using topic modeling to map how the AI community understands bias. They found the term carries multiple, even opposing meanings, with some researchers treating bias as a statistical parameter that can be adjusted rather than an issue to eliminate. This dispersion matters because inconsistent definitions can lead to uneven efforts in addressing bias in deployed AI systems. The paper argues that bias cannot be resolved through technical means alone and requires attention to social and ethical contexts.

Core claim

The definition of bias is dispersed and complex within the AI research community, often exhibiting even divergent conceptions (some even view and introduce bias as a tunable statistical parameter rather than an undesirable issue). The research community as a whole needs to engage more effectively with the concept of bias and establish a more cohesive understanding of it. Although some sub-communities view bias as an issue that can be captured and mitigated through technical, computational, or statistical methods, it is not solely a technical problem. It instead involves contextual, social, and ethical factors that require broader sociotechnical perspectives and solutions.

What carries the argument

Topic modeling applied to a large corpus of AI research articles to identify patterns in how bias is conceptualized.

If this is right

  • The AI research community requires greater engagement to develop a shared understanding of bias.
  • Technical mitigation strategies address only part of the issue, leaving social and ethical dimensions unaddressed.
  • Different sub-communities may require tailored approaches based on their specific conceptions of bias.
  • Broader sociotechnical perspectives are necessary for effective bias handling in AI systems.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If definitions remain divergent, collaborative projects across AI subfields could produce systems with conflicting bias standards.
  • Interdisciplinary workshops involving ethicists and social scientists might help align interpretations within the technical community.
  • Longitudinal analysis of papers could track whether conceptions of bias are converging over time.
  • Regulatory frameworks for AI might need to accommodate multiple valid interpretations of bias rather than assuming a uniform technical definition.

Load-bearing premise

The selected set of 6520 articles and the topics extracted from them accurately represent the interpretations of bias held by the wider AI research community.

What would settle it

A replication study using a differently sampled or larger corpus of AI papers that identifies a single dominant conception of bias would undermine the finding of dispersed meanings.

read the original abstract

As artificial intelligence (AI) pervades many decision-making domains, AI bias grows in importance. Although there is increasing awareness of the social and ethical consequences of biased AI, understanding bias from the perspective of those who develop these systems, such as the AI research community, is less clear. In this study, we employ topic modeling on 6520 articles to explore how the AI research community interprets the concept of bias. Our results show that the definition of bias is dispersed and complex within the community, often exhibiting even divergent conceptions (some even view and introduce bias as a tunable statistical parameter rather than an undesirable issue). The research community as a whole needs to engage more effectively with the concept of bias and establish a more cohesive understanding of it. We specifically argue that, although some sub-communities view bias as an issue that can be captured and mitigated through technical, computational, or statistical methods, it is not solely a technical problem. It instead involves contextual, social, and ethical factors that require broader sociotechnical perspectives and solutions.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript employs topic modeling on a corpus of 6520 AI articles to analyze interpretations of 'bias' within the AI research community. It finds that definitions are dispersed and complex, with some divergent views including treating bias as a tunable statistical parameter, and concludes that a more cohesive sociotechnical understanding is needed beyond purely technical approaches.

Significance. If the topic-to-conception mapping holds, the paper offers a data-driven perspective on conceptual diversity in AI bias research, highlighting the insufficiency of technical fixes alone. The large corpus size provides a broad view of community discourse, which is a methodological strength for identifying patterns in how bias is discussed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methods] Key parameters of the LDA topic model, such as the number of topics, alpha/beta values, and the method for determining the optimal number of topics (e.g., via perplexity or coherence), are not specified. This omission undermines the ability to evaluate whether the identified topics reliably capture distinct conceptions of bias.
  2. [Results] The claim that certain topics reflect a view of bias as a 'tunable statistical parameter rather than an undesirable issue' is not accompanied by supporting evidence, such as top words per topic, example article excerpts, or any form of qualitative validation. Without this, the interpretation of statistical clusters as normative or definitional stances lacks substantiation and is central to the paper's argument about divergent conceptions.
  3. [Discussion] The potential for selection bias in constructing the 6520-article corpus (e.g., search terms, databases used, time period) is not addressed, which directly impacts the generalizability of the findings to the 'AI research community as a whole'.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract mentions 'topic modeling' without any high-level details on the approach or validation, which could be added to better orient readers to the method's limitations.
  2. Some sentences in the abstract are long and could be split for improved readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive feedback. The comments highlight important areas for improving the clarity, reproducibility, and transparency of our work. We address each major comment below and will incorporate revisions to strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Methods] Key parameters of the LDA topic model, such as the number of topics, alpha/beta values, and the method for determining the optimal number of topics (e.g., via perplexity or coherence), are not specified. This omission undermines the ability to evaluate whether the identified topics reliably capture distinct conceptions of bias.

    Authors: We agree that full specification of LDA hyperparameters is necessary for reproducibility. The original manuscript omitted these details. In the revised version, we will add a dedicated methods subsection reporting the number of topics, alpha and beta values, and the coherence-based procedure used to select the optimal number of topics. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results] The claim that certain topics reflect a view of bias as a 'tunable statistical parameter rather than an undesirable issue' is not accompanied by supporting evidence, such as top words per topic, example article excerpts, or any form of qualitative validation. Without this, the interpretation of statistical clusters as normative or definitional stances lacks substantiation and is central to the paper's argument about divergent conceptions.

    Authors: We accept that the current manuscript does not provide sufficient supporting material for this interpretation. We will revise the Results section to include the top words for each topic, representative article excerpts, and a brief description of how the qualitative reading of those topics informed the claim that bias is treated as a tunable parameter in some sub-communities. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Discussion] The potential for selection bias in constructing the 6520-article corpus (e.g., search terms, databases used, time period) is not addressed, which directly impacts the generalizability of the findings to the 'AI research community as a whole'.

    Authors: We agree that corpus construction choices can introduce selection bias and that this should be explicitly discussed. We will add a Limitations subsection that details the search terms, database(s), and time window used, together with an assessment of how these choices may affect the generalizability of the findings to the broader AI research community. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical topic modeling of literature corpus

full rationale

The paper applies LDA topic modeling to a corpus of 6520 articles and interprets the resulting topics as evidence of dispersed and divergent conceptions of bias. No equations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, or self-citation chains appear in the derivation. The central claim is an empirical observation drawn directly from the topic distributions; it does not reduce by construction to any input definition or prior result supplied by the authors. The analysis is self-contained against the external corpus and does not invoke uniqueness theorems or ansatzes from the authors' own prior work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis depends on the validity of topic modeling for conceptual analysis and the representativeness of the 6520 articles.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Topic modeling can reliably extract and represent community conceptions of a concept like bias from scientific literature.
    The paper relies on this to interpret the results as reflecting actual divergent meanings.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5722 in / 1022 out tokens · 23475 ms · 2026-06-30T22:54:33.283145+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adnan, M. N. (2022). On reducing the bias of random forest. Advanced Data Mining and Applications: 18th International Conference, ADMA 2022, Brisbane, QLD, Australia, November 28 – 30, 2022, Proceedings, Part, II , 187 –

    2022

  2. [2]

    Scott Armstrong, ed.Expert Opinions in Forecasting: The Role of the Delphi Technique

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-031-22137-8_14 Ali, O., Murray, P. A., Momin, M., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Malik, T. (2024). The effects of artificial intelligence applications in educational settings: Challenges and strategies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 199 , 123076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. techfore.2023.123076 , 123076. Altarturi, H. H. M....

    work page doi:10.1007/978- 2024

  3. [3]

    https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428121991230 Ao, Z., Horv ´ath, G.b., Sheng, C.c., Song, Y.d., & Sun, Y. D. (2023). Skill requirements in job advertisements: A comparison of skill-categorization methods based on wage regressions. Information Processing & Management, 60 (2), Article 103185. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ipm.2022.103185 Aralikatte, R., Sridhara, G...

    work page doi:10.1177/1094428121991230 2023

  4. [4]

    https://doi.org/10.17705/ 1jais.00664 Avellan, T., Sharma, S., & Turunen, M. (2020). AI for all: Defining the what, why, and how of inclusive AI. Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on academic mindtrek (pp. 142 – 144). https://doi.org/10.1145/3377290.3377317 Balgi, S., & Dukkipati, A. (2022). Contradistinguisher: A Vapnik ’ s imperative to u...

    work page doi:10.1145/3377290.3377317 2020

  5. [5]

    https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2021.3071225 Barocas, S., & Hardt, M. (2023). Fairness and machine learning: Limitations and opportunities . MIT Press . Bechky, B. A. (2003). Sharing meaning across occupational communities: The transformation of understanding on a production floor. Organization Science, 14 (3), 312 –

    work page doi:10.1109/tpami.2021.3071225 2021

  6. [6]

    M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S

    https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.3.312.15162 Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big?. Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency (pp. 610 – 623). https://doi. org/10.1145/3442188.3445922 Bhattacharyya, S., Jha, S., ...

    work page doi:10.1287/orsc.14.3.312.15162 2021

  7. [7]

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2010.08.008 Binns, R. (2018). Fairness in machine learning: Lessons from political philosophy. In Conference on fairness, accountability and transparency (pp. 149 – 159). https ://proceedings.mlr.press/v81/binns18a.html . Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., & Jordan, M. I. (2003). Latent dirichlet allocation. Journal of machine Learning ...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.dss.2010.08.008 2010

  8. [8]

    https://doi.org/10.1016/10.1109/ TNNLS.2015.2480683 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2), 77 –

    work page doi:10.1016/10.1109/ 2015

  9. [9]

    https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Bruno, A., Gugliuzza, F., Pirrone, R., & Ardizzone, E. (2020). A multi-scale colour and keypoint density-based approach for visual saliency detection. IEEE Access, 8 , 121330 – 121343. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3006700 Buhmann, A., & Fieseler, C. (2023). Deep learning meets deep democracy: Deliberative g...

    work page doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa 2020

  10. [10]

    https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2021.42 Cao, Q., Cheng, X., & Liao, S. (2022). A comparison study of topic modeling based literature analysis by using full texts and abstracts of scientific articles: A case of COVID-19 research. Library Hi Tech, 41 (2), 543 –

    work page doi:10.1017/beq.2021.42 2021

  11. [11]

    https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT- 03-2022-0144 Cave, S. (2020). The problem with intelligence. Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM conference on AI, ethics, and society. AIES ’ 20: AAAI/ACM conference on AI . https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3375627.3375813 . Ethics, and Society, New York NY USA. Chawla, N. V., Lazarevic, A., Hall, L. O., & Bowyer, K. W. (2003). SMOTEBoost: I...

    work page doi:10.1108/lht- 2022

  12. [12]

    org/10.1109/TCDS.2019.2926477 Chen, Y., Mahoney, C., Grasso, I., Wali, E., Matthews, A., Middleton, T., Njie, M., & Matthews, J

    https://doi. org/10.1109/TCDS.2019.2926477 Chen, Y., Mahoney, C., Grasso, I., Wali, E., Matthews, A., Middleton, T., Njie, M., & Matthews, J. (2021). Gender bias and under-representation in natural language processing across human languages. Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM conference on AI, ethics, and society (pp. 24 – 34). https://doi.org/10.1145/34617...

    work page doi:10.1109/tcds.2019.2926477 2019

  13. [13]

    I E., & Ozturk, Z

    Cicek, Z. I E., & Ozturk, Z. K. (2021). Optimizing the artificial neural network parameters using a biased random key genetic algorithm for time series forecasting. Applied Soft Computing, 102 , 107091. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2021.107091 . Clevert, D.-A., Unterthiner, T., & Hochreiter, S. (2016). Fast and accurate deep network learning by exponent...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2021.107091 2021

  14. [14]

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10994-010-5192-9 Deveaud, R., SanJuan, E., & Bellot, P. (2014). Accurate and effective latent concept modeling for ad hoc information retrieval. Document Num ´erique, 17 (1), 61 –

    work page doi:10.1007/s10994-010-5192-9 2014

  15. [15]

    Dieng, A

    htt ps://shs.cairn.info/article/DN_171_0061 . Dieng, A. B., Ruiz, F. J. R., & Blei, D. M. (2020). Topic modeling in embedding spaces. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8 , 439 –

    2020

  16. [16]

    org/10.1162/tacl_a_00325 Dietterich, T

    https://doi. org/10.1162/tacl_a_00325 Dietterich, T. G., & Kong, E. B. (1995). Machine learning bias, statistical bias, and statistical variance of decision tree algorithms. Cit ´es . https://citeseerx.ist.psu. edu/document?repid = rep1 & type = pdf & doi = 893b204890394d1bf4f3332b4b902bf db30a9a13 . Duan, Y., Chang, H., Huang, W., & Zhou, J. (2014). Simu...

    work page doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00325 1995

  17. [17]

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-020-00011-6 ElShawi, R., Sherif, Y., Al-Mallah, M., & Sakr, S. (2021). Interpretability in healthcare: A comparative study of local machine learning interpretability techniques. Computational Intelligence, 37 (4), 1633 –

    work page doi:10.1007/s43681-020-00011-6 2021

  18. [18]

    https://doi.org/10.1111/coin.12410 Erhan, D., Courville, A., Bengio, Y., & Vincent, P. (2010). Why does unsupervised pre- training help deep learning?. Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and statistics (pp. 201 – 208). https://proceedings.mlr.press/v9/e rhan10a.html . Erzurum Cicek, Z. I., & Kamisli Ozturk, Z...

    work page doi:10.1111/coin.12410 2010

  19. [19]

    H., Lipton, Z

    https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v10i1.14744 Feffer, M., Sinha, A., Deng, W. H., Lipton, Z. C., & Heidari, H. (2024). Red-teaming for generative AI: Silver bullet or security theater? In arXiv [cs.CY] . arXiv . http://arxiv. org/abs/2401.15897 . Felzmann, H., Fosch-Villaronga, E., Lutz, C., & Tam `o-Larrieux, A. (2020). Towards transparency by design for art...

    work page doi:10.1609/icwsm.v10i1.14744 2024

  20. [20]

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00276-4 Ferrara, E. (2023). Fairness and bias in artificial intelligence: A brief survey of sources, impacts, and mitigation strategies. Science, 6 (1),

    work page doi:10.1007/s11948-020-00276-4 2023

  21. [21]

    https://doi.org/10.3390/ sci6010003 Fiore, U., De Santis, A., Perla, F., Zanetti, P., & Palmieri, F. (2019). Using generative adversarial networks for improving classification effectiveness in credit card fraud detection. Information Sciences, 479 , 448 –

    2019

  22. [22]

    Forsyth, S., Dalton, B., Foster, E

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2017.1 2.030 . Forsyth, S., Dalton, B., Foster, E. H., Walsh, B., Smilack, J., & Yeh, T. (2021). Imagine a more ethical AI: Using stories to develop teens ’ awareness and understanding of artificial intelligence and its societal impacts. 2021 conference on research in equitable M.H. Jarrahi et al. Technology in Society 84 (20...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ins.2017.1 2017

  23. [23]

    https://doi.org/10.1145/1839676.1839701 Friedman, B., & Nissenbaum, H. (1996). Bias in computer systems. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security, 14 (3), 330 –

    work page doi:10.1145/1839676.1839701 1996

  24. [24]

    https://doi.org/10.1145/ 230538.230561 Fu, H., Liu, J., Wu, G., Xu, Y., & Sutcliffe, G. (2022). Improving probability selection based weights for satisfiability problems. Knowledge-Based Systems, 245 , Article 108572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2022.108572 Gharghabi, S., Imani, S., Bagnall, A., Darvishzadeh, A., & Keogh, E. (2018). Matrix Profile XI...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2022.108572 2022

  25. [25]

    A., Faulin, J., De Armas, J., & Ramalhinho, H

    https://doi.org/10.1111/ bjir.12840 Grasas, A., Juan, A. A., Faulin, J., De Armas, J., & Ramalhinho, H. (2017). Biased randomization of heuristics using skewed probability distributions: A survey and some applications. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 110 , 216 –

    2017

  26. [26]

    org/10.1016/j.cie.2017.06.019 Griffin, T

    https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cie.2017.06.019 Griffin, T. A., Green, B. P., & Welie, J. V. M. (2023). The ethical agency of AI developers. AI and Ethics . https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00256-3 Guo, H., & Viktor, H. L. (2004). Learning from imbalanced data sets with boosting and data generation: The DataBoost-IM approach. SIGKDD Explor, 6 (1), 30 –

    work page doi:10.1016/j.cie.2017.06.019 2017

  27. [27]

    https:// doi.org/10.1145/1007730.100773 . Newsl. Gupta, R., & Alam, T. (2023). A deep neural network with hybrid spotted hyena optimizer and grasshopper optimization algorithm for copy move forgery detection. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 82 (16), 24547 – 24572. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11042-022-14163-6 Hagen, L. (2018). Content analysis of e-petit...

    work page doi:10.1145/1007730.100773 2023

  28. [28]

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2018.05.006 Hall, P., & Ellis, D. (2023). A systematic review of socio-technical gender bias in AI algorithms. Online Information Review, 47 (7), 1264 –

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2018.05.006 2018

  29. [29]

    R., Haans, R

    https://doi.org/10.1108/ OIR-08-2021-0452 Hannigan, T. R., Haans, R. F., Vakili, K., Tchalian, H., Glaser, V. L., Wang, M. S., … Jennings, P. D. (2019). Topic modeling in management research: Rendering new theory from textual data. Academy of Management Annals, 13 (2), 586 –

    2021

  30. [30]

    Higgins, J

    https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2017.0099 . Higgins, J. P. T., Altman, D. G., G ø tzsche, P. C., Jüni, P., Moher, D., Oxman, A. D., Savovic, J., Schulz, K. F., Weeks, L., & Sterne, J. A. C. (2011). The cochrane Collaboration ’ s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ, 343 , Article d5928. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5928 Hu, Q., He, Q.,...

    work page doi:10.5465/annals.2017.0099 2017

  31. [31]

    Metric-free individual fairness with cooperative contextual bandits

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10844-015-0371-6 Hu, Qian, & Rangwala, H. Metric-free individual fairness with cooperative contextual bandits. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDM50108.2020.00027 . Islam, S., & Hassanzadeh Amin, S. (2020). Prediction of probable backorder scenarios in the supply chain using distributed random forest and gradient boosting machine learnin...

    work page doi:10.1007/s10844-015-0371-6 2020

  32. [32]

    H., Lutz, C., Boyd, K., Ø sterlund, C., & Willis, M

    Jarrahi, M. H., Lutz, C., Boyd, K., Ø sterlund, C., & Willis, M. (2023a). AI in the work context. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 74 (3). https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24730 Jarrahi, M. H., Memariani, A., & Guha, S. (2023b). The principles of data-centric AI. Communications of the ACM, 66 (8), 84 –

    work page doi:10.1002/asi.24730

  33. [33]

    https://doi.org/10.1145/3571724 Ji, Z., Liu, J., & Li, G. (2014). A fuzzy clustering algorithm via enhanced spatially constraint for brain MR image segmentation. 2014 international conference on Orange technologies (pp. 105 – 108). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICOT.2014.6956610 Jiang, L., Xu, M., Liu, T., Qiao, M., & Wang, Z. (2018). DeepVS: A deep learning ba...

    work page doi:10.1145/3571724 2014

  34. [34]

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00530-014-0395-8 Juntu, J., Sijbers, J., Van Dyck, D., & Gielen, J. (2005). Bias field correction for MRI images. Computer Recognition Systems , 543 –

    work page doi:10.1007/s00530-014-0395-8 2005

  35. [35]

    https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540- 32390-2_64 Karami, A. (2015). In A. Gangopadhyay (Ed.), Fuzzy topic modeling for medical corpora . Baltimore County]: University of Maryland. http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?ur l = https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/fuzzy-topic-modeling-medica l-corpora/docview/1721469756/se-2 . Karami, A., Lundy, M., Webb, F., ...

    work page doi:10.1007/3-540- 2015

  36. [36]

    N., Ford, K., Swan, S., & Yildiz Spinel, M

    https://doi.org/ 10.3390/bdcc8100130 Karami, A., White, C. N., Ford, K., Swan, S., & Yildiz Spinel, M. (2020). Unwanted advances in higher education:uncovering sexual harassment experiences in academia with text mining. Information Processing & Management, 57 (2), Article 102167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2019.102167 K ¨arkk ¨ainen, K., & Joo, J. (202...

    work page doi:10.3390/bdcc8100130 2020

  37. [37]

    K., & Devi, D

    https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2021.1927212 Kumar, S., Biswas, S. K., & Devi, D. (2019). TLUSBoost algorithm: A boosting solution for class imbalance problem. Soft Computing, 23 (21), 10755 – 10767. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s00500-018-3629-4 Lam-Adesina, A. M., & Jones, G. J. F. (2001). Applying summarization techniques for term selection in relevance f...

    work page doi:10.1080/0960085x.2021.1927212 2021

  38. [38]

    https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5- 69 Li, X., Fang, M., Li, H., & Wu, J. (2020). Learning domain invariant unseen features for generalized zero-shot classification. Knowledge-Based Systems, 206 , Article 106378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2020.106378 Li, E., Feng, H., Zhou, H., Li, X., Zhai, Y., Zhang, S., & Fu, Y. (2019). Model learning for two-w...

    work page doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5- 2020

  39. [39]

    C., Metaxas, D

    Li, C., Huang, R., Ding, Z., Gatenby, J. C., Metaxas, D. N., & Gore, J. C. (2011). A level set method for image segmentation in the presence of intensity inhomogeneities with application to MRI. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 20 (7), 2007 –

    2011

  40. [40]

    https:// doi.org/10.1109/TIP.2011.2146190 Limthong, K., Fukuda, K., Ji, Y., & Yamada, S. (2015). Weighting technique on multi- timeline for machine learning-based anomaly detection system. In 2015 international conference on computing, communication and security (ICCCS) (pp. 1 – 6). https://doi. org/10.1109/CCCS.2015.7374168 Liu, X., Zhou, Y., & Wang, Z. ...

    work page doi:10.1109/tip.2011.2146190 2011

  41. [41]

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10791-010-9141-9 Lutz, C. (2024). Social inequalities and artificial intelligence: How digital inequality scholarship enhances our understanding. In D. Brzezi ´nski, K. Filipek, K. Piwowar, & M. Winiarska-Brodowska (Eds.), Algorithms, artificial intelligence and beyond (pp. 193 – 210). Routledge . Maclure, J. (2021). AI, explainab...

    work page doi:10.1007/s10791-010-9141-9 2024

  42. [42]

    org/10.1007/s11023-021-09570-x Madaio, M

    https://doi. org/10.1007/s11023-021-09570-x Madaio, M. A., Stark, L., Wortman Vaughan, J., & Wallach, H. (2020). Co-designing checklists to understand organizational challenges and opportunities around fairness in AI. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1 – 14). https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376445 Malek...

    work page doi:10.1007/s11023-021-09570-x 2020

  43. [43]

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681- 022-00137-9 McCallum, A. K. (2002). Mallet: A machine learning for languagetoolkit. https://cir.nii. ac.jp/crid/1573105974103526144 . Mehrabi, N., Morstatter, F., Saxena, N., Lerman, K., & Galstyan, A. (2022). A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning. ACM Computing Surveys, 45 (6), 1 –

    work page doi:10.1007/s43681- 2002

  44. [44]

    D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S., & Floridi, L

    https:// doi.org/10.1145/3457607 Mittelstadt, B. D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S., & Floridi, L. (2016). The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data & Society, 3 (2), 1 –

    work page doi:10.1145/3457607 2016

  45. [45]

    https://doi.org/ 10.1177/2053951716679679 Miyata, Y., Ishita, E., Yang, F., Yamamoto, M., Iwase, A., & Kurata, K. (2020). Knowledge structure transition in library and information science: Topic modeling and visualization. Scientometrics, 125 (1), 665 –

    work page doi:10.1177/2053951716679679 2020

  46. [46]

    B., Javidi, G., & Sheybani, E

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192- 020-03657-5 Moghanian, S., Saravi, F. B., Javidi, G., & Sheybani, E. O. (2020). GOAMLP: Network intrusion detection with multilayer perceptron and grasshopper optimization algorithm. IEEE Access, 8 , 215202 – 215213. https://doi.org/10.1109/ ACCESS.2020.3040740 Mohammadi, M., Al-Fuqaha, A., Sorour, S., & Guizani, M. (2018)....

    work page doi:10.1007/s11192- 2020

  47. [47]

    https://doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2018.2844341 Ncir, N., Sebbane, S., & El Akchioui, N. (2022). A novel intelligent technique based on metaheuristic algorithms and artificial neural networks: Application on a photovoltaic panel. 2022 2nd international conference on innovative research in applied science, engineering and technology (IRASET) (pp. 1 – 8). https:...

    work page doi:10.1109/comst.2018.2844341 2018

  48. [48]

    E., & Abdelhadi, A

    https:// doi.org/10.3389/fdata.2019.00013 Ouadrhiri, A. E., & Abdelhadi, A. (2021). Differential privacy for fair deep learning models. 2021 IEEE international systems conference (SysCon) (pp. 1 – 6). https://doi. org/10.1109/SysCon48628.2021.9591252 Pagano, T. P., Loureiro, R. B., Lisboa, F. V. N., Peixoto, R. M., Guimar ˜aes, G. A. S., Cruz, G. O. R., A...

    work page doi:10.3389/fdata.2019.00013 2019

  49. [49]

    J., Moher, D., Bossuyt, P

    https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc7010015 Page, M. J., Moher, D., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, & McKenzie, J. E. (2021). PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372 , Article n160. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160 Papamartzivanos, D., G ´omez M ´armol, F., & Kamboura...

    work page doi:10.3390/bdcc7010015 2021

  50. [51]

    V., Elvira, T

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jbusres.2019.07.039 Solomonides, A. E., Koski, E., Atabaki, S. M., Weinberg, S., McGreevey, J. D., Kannry, J. L., Petersen, C., & Lehmann, C. U. (2022). Defining AMIA ’ s artificial intelligence principles. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association: JAMIA, 29 (4), 585 –

    work page doi:10.1016/j 2019

  51. [52]

    https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocac006 Soprano, M., Roitero, K., La Barbera, D., Ceolin, D., Spina, D., Demartini, G., & Mizzaro, S. (2024). Cognitive biases in fact-checking and their countermeasures: A review. Information Processing & Management, 61 (3), Article 103672. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ipm.2024.103672 Suresh, H., & Guttag, J. (2021). A framewo...

    work page doi:10.1093/jamia/ocac006 2024

  52. [53]

    S., Bhagawati, M., Paul, S., Protogeron, A., Sfikakis, P

    https://doi.org/10.1145/3465416.3483305 Suri, J. S., Bhagawati, M., Paul, S., Protogeron, A., Sfikakis, P. P., Kitas, G. D., Khanna, N. N., Ruzsa, Z., Sharma, A. M., Saxena, S., Faa, G., Paraskevas, K. I., Laird, J. R., Johri, A. M., Saba, L., & Kalra, M. (2022). Understanding the bias in machine learning systems for cardiovascular disease risk assessment...

    work page doi:10.1145/3465416.3483305 2022

  53. [54]

    https://doi.org/10.1145/3411763.3441333 Tao, X., Zheng, Y., Chen, W., Zhang, X., Qi, L., Fan, Z., & Huang, S. (2022). SVDD-based weighted oversampling technique for imbalanced and overlapped dataset learning. Information Sciences, 588 , 13 –

    work page doi:10.1145/3411763.3441333 2022

  54. [55]

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2021.12.066 Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14 (3), 207 –

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ins.2021.12.066 2021

  55. [56]

    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375 Tseng, P.-H., Carmi, R., Cameron, I. G. M., Munoz, D. P., & Itti, L. (2009). Quantifying center bias of observers in free viewing of dynamic natural scenes. Journal of Vision, 9 (7),

    work page doi:10.1111/1467-8551.00375 2009

  56. [57]

    J., Moerland, P

    https://doi.org/10.1167/9.7.4 Van Altena, A. J., Moerland, P. D., Zwinderman, A. H., & Olabarriaga, S. D. (2016). Understanding big data themes from scientific biomedical literature through topic modeling. Journal of Big Data, 3 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40537-016-0057-0 Vayansky, I., & Kumar, S. A. P. (2020). A review of topic modeling methods. Infor...

    work page doi:10.1167/9.7.4 2016

  57. [58]

    https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22748 Wang, Z., Du, B., Zhang, L., Zhang, L., & Jia, X. (2017). A novel semisupervised active- learning algorithm for hyperspectral image classification. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing: A Publication of the IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Society, 55 (6), 3071 –

    work page doi:10.1002/asi.22748 2017

  58. [59]

    https://doi.org/10.1109/TGRS.2017.2650938 Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2022). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26 (2). xiii-xxiii . Williams, B. A., Brooks, C. F., & Shmargad, Y. (2018). How algorithms discriminate based on data they lack: Challenges, solutions, and policy implications. Journal of ...

    work page doi:10.1109/tgrs.2017.2650938 2017

  59. [60]

    J., Miller, K., & Grodzinsky, F

    https://doi.org/10.5325/jinfopoli.8.2018.0078 Wolf, M. J., Miller, K., & Grodzinsky, F. S. (2017). Why we should have seen that coming. ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society, 47 (3), 54 –

    work page doi:10.5325/jinfopoli.8.2018.0078 2018

  60. [61]

    https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3144592.3144598 Wu, M., Li, Q., Zhang, J., & Hou, J. (2022). Label aggregation with clustering for biased crowdsourced labeling. 2022 14th international conference on machine learning and computing (ICMLC) (pp. 165 – 169). https://doi.org/10.1145/3529836.3529861 Wu, T., Yao, M., & Yang, J. (2017). Dolphin swarm extreme learning ma...

    work page doi:10.1145/3529836.3529861 2022

  61. [62]

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-017-9451-y Xu, Y., Yang, Y., Han, J., Wang, E., Zhuang, F., Yang, J., & Xiong, H. (2019). NeuO: Exploiting the sentimental bias between ratings and reviews with neural networks. Neural Networks: The Official Journal of the International Neural Network Society, 111 , 77 –

    work page doi:10.1007/s12559-017-9451-y 2019

  62. [63]

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2018.12.011 Xue, J., Wang, Y.-C., Wei, C., Liu, X., Woo, J., & Kuo, C.-C. J. (2023). Bias and fairness in chatbots: An overview. arXiv [cs.CL]. arXiv . http://arxiv.org/abs/2309.08836 . Yang, Y., Zhang, X., Yang, M., & Deng, C. (2023). Adaptive bias-aware feature generation for generalized zero-shot learning. IEEE Transact...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2018.12.011 2018

  63. [64]

    https://doi.org/10.1109/TMM.2021.3125134 Zhang, F., Bai, L., & Gao, F. (2009). A user trust-based collaborative filtering recommendation algorithm. Information and Communications Security , 411 –

    work page doi:10.1109/tmm.2021.3125134 2021

  64. [65]

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-11145-7_32 Zhang, H., Chu, X., Asudeh, A., & Navathe, S. B. (2021). OmniFair: A declarative system for model-agnostic group fairness in machine learning. Proceedings of the 2021 international conference on management of data (pp. 2076 – 2088). https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3448016.3452787 Zhang, D., Luo, T., & Wang, D. (2016)....

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-642-11145-7_32 2021

  65. [66]

    org/10.1007/s10489-017-1028-7 Zhao, Y., Xu, T., Liu, X., Guo, D., Hu, Z., Liu, H., & Li, Y

    https://doi. org/10.1007/s10489-017-1028-7 Zhao, Y., Xu, T., Liu, X., Guo, D., Hu, Z., Liu, H., & Li, Y. (2022). Visual feature synthesis with semantic reconstructor for traditional and generalized zero-shot object classification. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 37 (5), 2934 –

    work page doi:10.1007/s10489-017-1028-7 2022

  66. [67]

    Jarrahi et al

    https:// doi.org/10.1002/int.22811 M.H. Jarrahi et al. Technology in Society 84 (2026) 103127 20

    work page doi:10.1002/int.22811 2026