An official website of the United States government
Given significant concerns about fairness and bias in the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) for psychological assessment, we provide a conceptual framework for investigating and mitigating machine-learning measurement bias (MLMB) from a psychometric perspective. MLMB is defined as differential functioning of the trained ML model between subgroups. MLMB manifests empirically when a trained ML model produces different predicted score levels for different subgroups (e.g., race, gender) despite them having the same ground-truth levels for the underlying construct of interest (e.g., personality) and/or when the model yields differential predictive accuracies across the subgroups. Because the development of ML models involves both data and algorithms, both biased data and algorithm-training bias are potential sources of MLMB. Data bias can occur in the form of nonequivalence between subgroups in the ground truth, platform-based construct, behavioral expression, and/or feature computing. Algorithm-training bias can occur when algorithms are developed with nonequivalence in the relation between extracted features and ground truth (i.e., algorithm features are differentially used, weighted, or transformed between subgroups). We explain how these potential sources of bias may manifest during ML model development and share initial ideas for mitigating them, including recognizing that new statistical and algorithmic procedures need to be developed. We also discuss how this framework clarifies MLMB but does not reduce the complexity of the issue.
more »
« less
The Sins of the Parents Are to Be Laid Upon the Children: Biased Humans, Biased Data, Biased Models
Technological innovations have become a key driver of societal advancements. Nowhere is this more evident than in the field of machine learning (ML), which has developed algorithmic models that shape our decisions, behaviors, and outcomes. These tools have widespread use, in part, because they can synthesize massive amounts of data to make seemingly objective recommendations. Yet, in the past few years, the ML community has been drawing attention to the need for caution when interpreting and using these models. This is because these models are created by humans, from data generated by humans, whose psychology allows for various biases that impact how the models are developed, trained, tested, and interpreted. As psychologists, we thus face a fork in the road: Down the first path, we can continue to use these models without examining and addressing these critical flaws and rely on computer scientists to try to mitigate them. Down the second path, we can turn our expertise in bias toward this growing field, collaborating with computer scientists to reduce the models’ deleterious outcomes. This article serves to light the way down the second path by identifying how extant psychological research can help examine and curtail bias in ML models.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1846531
- PAR ID:
- 10432930
- Publisher / Repository:
- SAGE Publications
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Perspectives on Psychological Science
- Volume:
- 19
- Issue:
- 5
- ISSN:
- 1745-6916
- Format(s):
- Medium: X Size: p. 796-807
- Size(s):
- p. 796-807
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
The importance of incorporating ethics and legal compliance into machine-assisted decision-making is broadly recognized. Further, several lines of recent work have argued that critical opportunities for improving data quality and representativeness, controlling for bias, and allowing humans to oversee and impact computational processes are missed if we do not consider the lifecycle stages upstream from model training and deployment. Yet, very little has been done to date to provide system-level support to data scientists who wish to develop responsible machine learning methods. We aim to fill this gap and present FairPrep, a design and evaluation framework for fairness-enhancing interventions, which helps data scientists follow best practices in ML experimentation. We identify shortcomings in existing empirical studies for analyzing fairness-enhancing interventions and show how FairPrep can be used to measure their impact. Our results suggest that the high variability of the outcomes of fairness-enhancing interventions observed in previous studies is often an artifact of a lack of hyperparameter tuning, and that the choice of a data cleaning method can impact the effectiveness of fairness-enhancing interventionsmore » « less
-
Several recent research efforts have proposed Machine Learning (ML)-based solutions that can detect complex patterns in network traffic for a wide range of network security problems. However, without understanding how these black-box models are making their decisions, network operators are reluctant to trust and deploy them in their production settings. One key reason for this reluctance is that these models are prone to the problem of underspecification, defined here as the failure to specify a model in adequate detail. Not unique to the network security domain, this problem manifests itself in ML models that exhibit unexpectedly poor behavior when deployed in real-world settings and has prompted growing interest in developing interpretable ML solutions (e.g., decision trees) for “explaining” to humans how a given black-box model makes its decisions. However, synthesizing such explainable models that capture a given black-box model’s decisions with high fidelity while also being practical (i.e., small enough in size for humans to comprehend) is challenging. In this paper, we focus on synthesizing high-fidelity and low-complexity decision trees to help network operators determine if their ML models suffer from the problem of underspecification. To this end, we present TRUSTEE, a framework that takes an existing ML model and training dataset generate a high-fidelity, easy-to-interpret decision tree, and associated trust report. Using published ML models that are fully reproducible, we show how practitioners can use TRUSTEE to identify three common instances of model underspecification, i.e., evidence of shortcut learning, spurious correlations, and vulnerability to out-of-distribution samples.more » « less
-
Everyone puts things off sometimes. How can we combat this tendency to procrastinate? A well-known technique used by instructors is to break up a large project into more manageable chunks. But how should this be done best? Here we study the process of chunking using the graph-theoretic model of present bias introduced by Kleinberg and Oren [2014]. We first analyze how to optimally chunk single edges within a task graph, given a limited number of chunks. We show that for edges on the shortest path, the optimal chunking makes initial chunks easy and later chunks progressively harder. For edges not on the shortest path, optimal chunking is significantly more complex, but we provide an efficient algorithm that chunks the edge optimally. We then use our optimal edge-chunking algorithm to optimally chunk task graphs. We show that with a linear number of chunks on each edge, the biased agent’s cost can be exponentially lowered, to within a constant factor of the true cheapest path. Finally, we extend our model to the case where a task designer must chunk a graph for multiple types of agents simultaneously. The problem grows significantly more complex with even two types of agents, but we provide optimal graph chunking algorithms for two types. Our work highlights the efficacy of chunking as a means to combat present bias.more » « less
-
Machine learning (ML) has become increasingly prevalent in various domains. However, ML algorithms sometimes give unfair outcomes and discrimination against certain groups. Thereby, bias occurs when our results produce a decision that is systematically incorrect. At various phases of the ML pipeline, such as data collection, pre-processing, model selection, and evaluation, these biases appear. Bias reduction methods for ML have been suggested using a variety of techniques. By changing the data or the model itself, adding more fairness constraints, or both, these methods try to lessen bias. The best technique relies on the particular context and application because each technique has advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, in this paper, we present a comprehensive survey of bias mitigation techniques in machine learning (ML) with a focus on in-depth exploration of methods, including adversarial training. We examine the diverse types of bias that can afflict ML systems, elucidate current research trends, and address future challenges. Our discussion encompasses a detailed analysis of pre-processing, in-processing, and post-processing methods, including their respective pros and cons. Moreover, we go beyond qualitative assessments by quantifying the strategies for bias reduction and providing empirical evidence and performance metrics. This paper serves as an invaluable resource for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers seeking to navigate the intricate landscape of bias in ML, offering both a profound understanding of the issue and actionable insights for responsible and effective bias mitigation.more » « less
