Cited by 23Human Mobility and Location-Based AnalysisEthics and Social Impacts of AICOVID-19 Digital Contact Tracing

Leveraging Administrative Data for Bias Audits: Assessing Disparate Coverage with Mobility Data for COVID-19 Policy

Open access
Coston, Amanda, Guha, Neel, Ouyang, Derek, Lu, Lisa, Chouldechova, Alexandra, Ho, Daniel E.·2021·Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency

Abstract

Anonymized smartphone-based mobility data has been widely adopted in devising and evaluating COVID-19 response strategies such as the targeting of public health resources. Yet little attention has been paid to measurement validity and demographic bias, due in part to the lack of documentation about which users are represented as well as the challenge of obtaining ground truth data on unique visits and demographics. We illustrate how linking large-scale administrative data can enable auditing mobility data for bias in the absence of demographic information and ground truth labels. More precisely, we show that linking voter roll data---containing individual-level voter turnout for specific voting locations along with race and age---can facilitate the construction of rigorous bias and reliability tests. Using data from North Carolina's 2018 general election, these tests illuminate a sampling bias that is particularly noteworthy in the pandemic context: older and non-white voters are less likely to be captured by mobility data. We show that allocating public health resources based on such mobility data could disproportionately harm high-risk elderly and minority groups.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3442188.3445881

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Auditor tenure is a key determinant of independence.

    “The tenure of auditors is another key determinant of independence [15].”

    From Outsider Oversight: Designing a Third Party Audit Ecosystem for AI Governance (2022) · cites this paper as [15]

    Section 4 describes an audit of demographic disparities in mobility-data coverage, and §4.5 applies it to voter turnout. Searches for auditor tenure, appointment length, and independence found no passage addressing whether tenure determines auditor independence. The source therefore does not verify the cited claim. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 47 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Han Bao, Xun Zhou, Yingxue Zhang, Yanhua Li, and Yiqun Xie. 2020. COVID- GAN: Estimating Human Mobility Responses to COVID-19 Pandemic through Spatio-Temporal Conditional Generative Adversarial Networks. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Advances in Geographic Information Systems. 273-282.
  2. Joy Buolamwini and Timnit Gebru. 2018. Gender Shades: Intersectional Accu- racy Disparities in Commercial Gender Classication. In Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research),

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Coston, A., Guha, N., Ouyang, D., Lu, L., Chouldechova, A., & Ho, D. E.
Affiliations
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency
Publisher
ACM
Published
2021-03
Pages
173-184
OpenAlex
W3101729298
Cited by
21
References
47
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 2
FWCI
10.25
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program (DGE1745016)
  • Stanford RISE initiative
  • K&L Gates Presidential Fellowship
  • Stanford's Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Transportation › Human Mobility and Location-Based Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › COVID-19 Digital Contact Tracing
Keywords
mobility data, bias auditing, administrative data linkage, sampling bias, demographic bias, COVID-19 pandemic response, public health resource allocation, older voters, minority voters, smartphone location data, measurement validity

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