The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
An Interactive Approach to Bias Mitigation in Machine Learning
Abstract
Underrepresentation and misrepresentation of protected groups in the training data is a significant source of bias for Machine Learning (ML) algorithms, resulting in decreased confidence and trustworthiness of the generated ML models. Such bias can be mitigated by incorporating both objective as well as subjective (through human users) measures of bias, and compensating for them by means of a suitable selection algorithm over subgroups of training data. In this paper, we propose a methodology of integrating bias detection and mitigation strategies through interactive visualization of machine learning models in selected protected spaces. In this approach, a (partially generated) ML model performance is visualized and evaluated by a human user or a community of human users in terms of potential presence of bias using both objective and subjective criteria. Guided by such human feedback, the ML algorithm can implement a variety of remedial sampling strategies to mitigate the bias using an iterative human-in-the-loop approach. We also provide experimental results with a benchmark ML dataset to demonstrate that such an interactive ML approach holds considerable promise in detecting and mitigating bias in ML models.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
[290] propose an iterative human-in-the-loop resampling approach where users can evaluate potential fairness issues of a model through interactive visualizations.
“[290] propose an iterative human-in-the-loop resampling approach where users can evaluate potential fairness issues of a model through interactive visualizations.”
From Fairness in machine learning: A survey (2024) · cites this paper as [290]
Citations
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 44 · Cited by 12
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- zahavy, 2016, Graying the black box: Understanding dqns, ICML, 1899
- dwork, 2018, Decoupled classifiers for groupfair and efficient machine learning, Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency, 119
- chou, 2014, Democratizing data science, Proceedings of the KDD 2014 20th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 24
- 10.1609/aimag.v35i4.2513 · DOI · Paper page
- wales, 2006, Founder of Wikipedia
- 2018, Home Credit Default Risk
- chiappa, 2018, A causal bayesian networks viewpoint on fairness, IFIP International Summer School on Privacy and Identity Management, 3
- wang, 2019, Repairing without retraining: Avoiding disparate impact with counterfactual distributions, International Conference on Machine Learning, 6618
Metadata
- Authors
- Wang, H., Mukhopadhyay, S., Xiao, Y., & Fang, S.
- Affiliations
- Indiana University (US)
- Indiana University Bloomington (US)
- Venue
- 2021 IEEE 20th International Conference on Cognitive Informatics & Cognitive Computing (ICCI*CC)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2021-10-29
- Pages
- 199-205
- OpenAlex
- W4285340650
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 44
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2
- FWCI
- 1.58
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Informatics & Cognitive Computing (ICCI*CC) (publishedVersion)
- IUScholarWorks (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
- Keywords
- algorithmic bias, bias mitigation, protected groups, interactive visualization, human-in-the-loop learning, bias detection, subgroup selection, algorithmic fairness
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review