|
2 | 2 | %% 2026 %% |
3 | 3 | %%%%%%%%%%%% |
4 | 4 |
|
5 | | -@article{acmhealth-2025, |
| 5 | +@article{acmhealth-2026, |
6 | 6 | author = {Queiroz Neto, Dilermando and Carlos, Anderson and Anjos, |
7 | 7 | Andr{\'{e}} and Berton, Lilian}, |
8 | 8 | keywords = {Fairness, Foundation Models, World Health}, |
@@ -40,6 +40,53 @@ @article{acmhealth-2025 |
40 | 40 | %% 2025 %% |
41 | 41 | %%%%%%%%%%%% |
42 | 42 |
|
| 43 | +@ARTICLE{melba-2025, |
| 44 | + author = {{\"{O}}zbulak, G{\"{o}}khan and Jimenez-del-Toro, Oscar |
| 45 | + and Fatoretto, Ma{\'{\i}}ra and Berton, Lilian and Anjos, Andr{\'{e}}}, |
| 46 | + keywords = {machine learning, Medical Image Analysis, |
| 47 | + multi-objective optimization, Multidimensional Fairness Evaluation, |
| 48 | + Utility-Fairness Trade-off}, |
| 49 | + month = dec, |
| 50 | + title = {A Multi-Objective Evaluation Framework for Analyzing |
| 51 | + Utility-Fairness Trade-Offs in Machine Learning Systems}, |
| 52 | + journal = {The Journal of Machine Learning for Biomedical Imaging}, |
| 53 | + volume = {3}, |
| 54 | + year = {2025}, |
| 55 | + pages = {938-957}, |
| 56 | + doi = {10.59275/j.melba.2025-ab9a}, |
| 57 | + abstract = {The evaluation of fairness models in Machine Learning |
| 58 | + involves complex challenges, such as defining appropriate metrics, |
| 59 | + balancing trade-offs between utility and fairness, and there are |
| 60 | + still gaps in this stage. This work presents a novel |
| 61 | + multi-objective evaluation framework that enables the analysis of |
| 62 | + utility-fairness trade-offs in Machine Learning systems. The |
| 63 | + framework was developed using criteria from Multi-Objective |
| 64 | + Optimization that collect comprehensive information regarding this |
| 65 | + complex evaluation task. The assessment of multiple Machine |
| 66 | + Learning systems is summarized, both quantitatively and |
| 67 | + qualitatively, in a straightforward manner through a radar chart |
| 68 | + and a measurement table encompassing various aspects such as |
| 69 | + convergence, system capacity, and diversity. The framework’s |
| 70 | + compact representation of performance facilitates the comparative |
| 71 | + analysis of different Machine Learning strategies for |
| 72 | + decision-makers, in real-world applications, with single or |
| 73 | + multiple fairness requirements. In particular, this study focuses |
| 74 | + on the medical imaging domain, where fairness considerations are |
| 75 | + crucial due to the potential impact of biased diagnostic systems on |
| 76 | + patient outcomes. The proposed framework enables a systematic |
| 77 | + evaluation of multiple fairness constraints, helping to identify |
| 78 | + and mitigate disparities among demographic groups while maintaining |
| 79 | + diagnostic performance. The framework is model-agnostic and |
| 80 | + flexible to be adapted to any kind of Machine Learning systems, |
| 81 | + that is, black- or white-box, any kind and quantity of evaluation |
| 82 | + metrics, including multidimensional fairness criteria. The |
| 83 | + functionality and effectiveness of the proposed framework are shown |
| 84 | + with different simulations, and an empirical study conducted on |
| 85 | + three real-world medical imaging datasets with various Machine |
| 86 | + Learning systems. Our evaluation framework is publicly available at |
| 87 | + https://pypi.org/project/fairical.}, |
| 88 | +} |
| 89 | + |
43 | 90 | @article{cbm-2025, |
44 | 91 | author = {Amiot, Victor and Jimenez-del-Toro, Oscar and |
45 | 92 | Guex-Croisier, Yan and Ott, Muriel and Bogaciu, Teodora-Elena and |
|
0 commit comments