More Like this

1. D-BIAS: A Causality-Based Human-in-the-Loop System for Tackling Algorithmic Bias

   https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2022.3209484  

   Ghai, Bhavya ; Mueller, Klaus ( January 2022 , IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics)

   With the rise of AI, algorithms have become better at learning underlying patterns from the training data including ingrained social biases based on gender, race, etc. Deployment of such algorithms to domains such as hiring, healthcare, law enforcement, etc. has raised serious concerns about fairness, accountability, trust and interpretability in machine learning algorithms. To alleviate this problem, we propose D-BIAS, a visual interactive tool that embodies human-in-the-loop AI approach for auditing and mitigating social biases from tabular datasets. It uses a graphical causal model to represent causal relationships among different features in the dataset and as a medium to inject domain knowledge. A user can detect the presence of bias against a group, say females, or a subgroup, say black females, by identifying unfair causal relationships in the causal network and using an array of fairness metrics. Thereafter, the user can mitigate bias by refining the causal model and acting on the unfair causal edges. For each interaction, say weakening/deleting a biased causal edge, the system uses a novel method to simulate a new (debiased) dataset based on the current causal model while ensuring a minimal change from the original dataset. Users can visually assess the impact of their interactions on different fairness metrics, utility metrics, data distortion, and the underlying data distribution. Once satisfied, they can download the debiased dataset and use it for any downstream application for fairer predictions. We evaluate D-BIAS by conducting experiments on 3 datasets and also a formal user study. We found that D-BIAS helps reduce bias significantly compared to the baseline debiasing approach across different fairness metrics while incurring little data distortion and a small loss in utility. Moreover, our human-in-the-loop based approach significantly outperforms an automated approach on trust, interpretability and accountability. 

   more » « less
2. A Multi-match Approach to the Author Uncertainty Problem

   https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2019-0006  

   Carley, Stephen F. ; Porter, Alan L. ; Youtie, Jan L. ( June 2019 , Journal of Data and Information Science)

   Abstract Purpose The ability to identify the scholarship of individual authors is essential for performance evaluation. A number of factors hinder this endeavor. Common and similarly spelled surnames make it difficult to isolate the scholarship of individual authors indexed on large databases. Variations in name spelling of individual scholars further complicates matters. Common family names in scientific powerhouses like China make it problematic to distinguish between authors possessing ubiquitous and/or anglicized surnames (as well as the same or similar first names). The assignment of unique author identifiers provides a major step toward resolving these difficulties. We maintain, however, that in and of themselves, author identifiers are not sufficient to fully address the author uncertainty problem. In this study we build on the author identifier approach by considering commonalities in fielded data between authors containing the same surname and first initial of their first name. We illustrate our approach using three case studies. Design/methodology/approach The approach we advance in this study is based on commonalities among fielded data in search results. We cast a broad initial net—i.e., a Web of Science (WOS) search for a given author’s last name, followed by a comma, followed by the first initial of his or her first name (e.g., a search for ‘John Doe’ would assume the form: ‘Doe, J’). Results for this search typically contain all of the scholarship legitimately belonging to this author in the given database (i.e., all of his or her true positives), along with a large amount of noise, or scholarship not belonging to this author (i.e., a large number of false positives). From this corpus we proceed to iteratively weed out false positives and retain true positives. Author identifiers provide a good starting point—e.g., if ‘Doe, J’ and ‘Doe, John’ share the same author identifier, this would be sufficient for us to conclude these are one and the same individual. We find email addresses similarly adequate—e.g., if two author names which share the same surname and same first initial have an email address in common, we conclude these authors are the same person. Author identifier and email address data is not always available, however. When this occurs, other fields are used to address the author uncertainty problem. Commonalities among author data other than unique identifiers and email addresses is less conclusive for name consolidation purposes. For example, if ‘Doe, John’ and ‘Doe, J’ have an affiliation in common, do we conclude that these names belong the same person? They may or may not; affiliations have employed two or more faculty members sharing the same last and first initial. Similarly, it’s conceivable that two individuals with the same last name and first initial publish in the same journal, publish with the same co-authors, and/or cite the same references. Should we then ignore commonalities among these fields and conclude they’re too imprecise for name consolidation purposes? It is our position that such commonalities are indeed valuable for addressing the author uncertainty problem, but more so when used in combination. Our approach makes use of automation as well as manual inspection, relying initially on author identifiers, then commonalities among fielded data other than author identifiers, and finally manual verification. To achieve name consolidation independent of author identifier matches, we have developed a procedure that is used with bibliometric software called VantagePoint (see www.thevantagepoint.com) While the application of our technique does not exclusively depend on VantagePoint, it is the software we find most efficient in this study. The script we developed to implement this procedure is designed to implement our name disambiguation procedure in a way that significantly reduces manual effort on the user’s part. Those who seek to replicate our procedure independent of VantagePoint can do so by manually following the method we outline, but we note that the manual application of our procedure takes a significant amount of time and effort, especially when working with larger datasets. Our script begins by prompting the user for a surname and a first initial (for any author of interest). It then prompts the user to select a WOS field on which to consolidate author names. After this the user is prompted to point to the name of the authors field, and finally asked to identify a specific author name (referred to by the script as the primary author) within this field whom the user knows to be a true positive (a suggested approach is to point to an author name associated with one of the records that has the author’s ORCID iD or email address attached to it). The script proceeds to identify and combine all author names sharing the primary author’s surname and first initial of his or her first name who share commonalities in the WOS field on which the user was prompted to consolidate author names. This typically results in significant reduction in the initial dataset size. After the procedure completes the user is usually left with a much smaller (and more manageable) dataset to manually inspect (and/or apply additional name disambiguation techniques to). Research limitations Match field coverage can be an issue. When field coverage is paltry dataset reduction is not as significant, which results in more manual inspection on the user’s part. Our procedure doesn’t lend itself to scholars who have had a legal family name change (after marriage, for example). Moreover, the technique we advance is (sometimes, but not always) likely to have a difficult time dealing with scholars who have changed careers or fields dramatically, as well as scholars whose work is highly interdisciplinary. Practical implications The procedure we advance has the ability to save a significant amount of time and effort for individuals engaged in name disambiguation research, especially when the name under consideration is a more common family name. It is more effective when match field coverage is high and a number of match fields exist. Originality/value Once again, the procedure we advance has the ability to save a significant amount of time and effort for individuals engaged in name disambiguation research. It combines preexisting with more recent approaches, harnessing the benefits of both. Findings Our study applies the name disambiguation procedure we advance to three case studies. Ideal match fields are not the same for each of our case studies. We find that match field effectiveness is in large part a function of field coverage. Comparing original dataset size, the timeframe analyzed for each case study is not the same, nor are the subject areas in which they publish. Our procedure is more effective when applied to our third case study, both in terms of list reduction and 100% retention of true positives. We attribute this to excellent match field coverage, and especially in more specific match fields, as well as having a more modest/manageable number of publications. While machine learning is considered authoritative by many, we do not see it as practical or replicable. The procedure advanced herein is both practical, replicable and relatively user friendly. It might be categorized into a space between ORCID and machine learning. Machine learning approaches typically look for commonalities among citation data, which is not always available, structured or easy to work with. The procedure we advance is intended to be applied across numerous fields in a dataset of interest (e.g. emails, coauthors, affiliations, etc.), resulting in multiple rounds of reduction. Results indicate that effective match fields include author identifiers, emails, source titles, co-authors and ISSNs. While the script we present is not likely to result in a dataset consisting solely of true positives (at least for more common surnames), it does significantly reduce manual effort on the user’s part. Dataset reduction (after our procedure is applied) is in large part a function of (a) field availability and (b) field coverage. 

   more » « less
3. LOGAN: Local Group Bias Detection by Clustering

   https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.155  

   Zhao, Jieyu ; Chang, Kai-Wei ( January 2020 , Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP))

   null (Ed.)

   Machine learning techniques have been widely used in natural language processing (NLP). However, as revealed by many recent studies, machine learning models often inherit and amplify the societal biases in data. Various metrics have been proposed to quantify biases in model predictions. In particular, several of them evaluate disparity in model performance between protected groups and advantaged groups in the test corpus. However, we argue that evaluating bias at the corpus level is not enough for understanding how biases are embedded in a model. In fact, a model with similar aggregated performance between different groups on the entire data may behave differently on instances in a local region. To analyze and detect such local bias, we propose LOGAN, a new bias detection technique based on clustering. Experiments on toxicity classification and object classification tasks show that LOGAN identifies bias in a local region and allows us to better analyze the biases in model predictions. 

   more » « less
4. Social Bias Meets Data Bias: The Impacts of Labeling and Measurement Errors on Fairness Criteria

   Liao, Yiqiao ; Naghizadeh, Parinaz ( June 2023 , Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence)

   Although many fairness criteria have been proposed to ensure that machine learning algorithms do not exhibit or amplify our existing social biases, these algorithms are trained on datasets that can themselves be statistically biased. In this paper, we investigate the robustness of existing (demographic) fairness criteria when the algorithm is trained on biased data. We consider two forms of dataset bias: errors by prior decision makers in the labeling process, and errors in the measurement of the features of disadvantaged individuals. We analytically show that some constraints (such as Demographic Parity) can remain robust when facing certain statistical biases, while others (such as Equalized Odds) are significantly violated if trained on biased data. We provide numerical experiments based on three real-world datasets (the FICO, Adult, and German credit score datasets) supporting our analytical findings. While fairness criteria are primarily chosen under normative considerations in practice, our results show that naively applying a fairness constraint can lead to not only a loss in utility for the decision maker, but more severe unfairness when data bias exists. Thus, understanding how fairness criteria react to different forms of data bias presents a critical guideline for choosing among existing fairness criteria, or for proposing new criteria, when available datasets may be biased. 

   more » « less
5. Representation Bias in Data: A Survey on Identification and Resolution Techniques

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3588433  

   Shahbazi, Nima ; Lin, Yin ; Asudeh, Abolfazl ; Jagadish, H. V. ( December 2023 , ACM Computing Surveys)

   Data-driven algorithms are only as good as the data they work with, while datasets, especially social data, often fail to represent minorities adequately. Representation Bias in data can happen due to various reasons, ranging from historical discrimination to selection and sampling biases in the data acquisition and preparation methods. Given that “bias in, bias out,” one cannot expect AI-based solutions to have equitable outcomes for societal applications, without addressing issues such as representation bias. While there has been extensive study of fairness in machine learning models, including several review papers, bias in the data has been less studied. This article reviews the literature on identifying and resolving representation bias as a feature of a dataset, independent of how consumed later. The scope of this survey is bounded to structured (tabular) and unstructured (e.g., image, text, graph) data. It presents taxonomies to categorize the studied techniques based on multiple design dimensions and provides a side-by-side comparison of their properties. There is still a long way to fully address representation bias issues in data. The authors hope that this survey motivates researchers to approach these challenges in the future by observing existing work within their respective domains. 

   more » « less