Cited by 224Ethics and Social Impacts of AIImbalanced Data Classification TechniquesExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)

Bias in machine learning software: why? how? what to do?

Open access
Chakraborty, Joymallya, Majumder, Suvodeep, Menzies, Tim·2021·Proceedings of the 29th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering

Abstract

Increasingly, software is making autonomous decisions in case of criminal sentencing, approving credit cards, hiring employees, and so on. Some of these decisions show bias and adversely affect certain social groups (e.g. those defined by sex, race, age, marital status). Many prior works on bias mitigation take the following form: change the data or learners in multiple ways, then see if any of that improves fairness. Perhaps a better approach is to postulate root causes of bias and then applying some resolution strategy. This paper postulates that the root causes of bias are the prior decisions that affect- (a) what data was selected and (b) the labels assigned to those examples. Our Fair-SMOTE algorithm removes biased labels; and rebalances internal distributions such that based on sensitive attribute, examples are equal in both positive and negative classes. On testing, it was seen that this method was just as effective at reducing bias as prior approaches. Further, models generated via Fair-SMOTE achieve higher performance (measured in terms of recall and F1) than other state-of-the-art fairness improvement algorithms. To the best of our knowledge, measured in terms of number of analyzed learners and datasets, this study is one of the largest studies on bias mitigation yet presented in the literature.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3468264.3468537

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • These methods do not mitigate the problem completely.

    “However, these methods do not mitigate the problem completely.”

    From SAFER: Situation Aware Facial Emotion Recognition (2023) · cites this paper as [44]

  • Recent works have proposed algorithmic methods to deal with bias in datasets.

    “Recent works have proposed several algorithmic methods to deal with the above-mentioned bias in the datasets [28, 19, 44].”

    From SAFER: Situation Aware Facial Emotion Recognition (2023) · cites this paper as [44]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chakraborty, J., Majumder, S., & Menzies, T.
Affiliations
North Carolina State University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 29th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering
Publisher
ACM
Published
2021-08-18
Pages
429-440
OpenAlex
W3165292502
Cited by
224
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 61 · 2024: 58 · 2023: 52 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 4
FWCI
28.93
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE) (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Laboratory for Analytic Sciences
  • NSF (1908762)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Imbalanced Data Classification Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Keywords
algorithmic bias, algorithmic fairness, bias mitigation, label bias, sensitive attributes, automated decision-making, sentencing, credit approval, hiring decisions

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