Bias in machine learning software: why? how? what to do?
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
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?
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
Data preprocessing techniques for classification without discrimination
Kamiran, F., & Calders, T. (2012) · Knowledge and Information Systems · doi:10.1007/s10115-011-0463-8 · Cited by 1,305 · see citing works
Fairness testing: testing software for discrimination
Galhotra, S., Brun, Y., & Meliou, A. (2017) · Proceedings of the 2017 11th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3106237.3106277 · Cited by 405 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
AI Fairness in Data Management and Analytics: A Review on Challenges, Methodologies and Applications
Chen, P., Wu, L., & Wang, L. (2023) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app131810258 · Cited by 155 · see citing works
Fairness-Aware Machine Learning Engineering: How Far Are We?
Ferrara, C., Sellitto, G., Ferrucci, F., Palomba, F., & De Lucia, A. (2024) · Empirical Software Engineering · doi:10.1007/s10664-023-10402-y · Cited by 60 · see citing works
“Software systems are being affected by new kinds of vulnerabilities, generated by their (in)ability to operate impartially and without ethical biases, i.e., guaranteeing fairness (Brun and Meliou 2018; Chakraborty et al. 2021).”
BackgroundInfluentialBiasAsker: Measuring the Bias in Conversational AI System
Wan, Y., Wang, W., He, P., Gu, J., Bai, H., & Lyu, M. R. (2023) · Proceedings of the 31st ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering · doi:10.1145/3611643.3616310 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Genovesi, S., Mönig, J. M., Schmitz, A., Poretschkin, M., Akila, M., Kahdan, M., Kleiner, R., Krieger, L., & Zimmermann, A. (2024) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-023-00291-8 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
SAFER: Situation Aware Facial Emotion Recognition
Palash, M., & Bhargava, B. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.09372 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
“Recent works have proposed several algorithmic methods to deal with the above-mentioned bias in the datasets [28, 19, 44].”
Background
- 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
- green
- arxiv.org
- 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