Research Papers

No Fair Lunch: A Causal Perspective on Dataset Bias in Machine Learning for Medical Imaging

Charles Jones, Daniel C. Castro, Fabio De Sousa Ribeiro +3

As machine learning methods gain prominence within clinical decision-making, addressing fairness concerns becomes increasingly urgent. Despite considerable work dedicated to detecting and ameliorating algorithmic bias, today's methods are deficient with potentially harmful consequences. Our causal perspective sheds new light on algorithmic bias, highlighting how different sources of dataset bias may appear indistinguishable yet require substantially different mitigation strategies. We introduce three families of causal bias mechanisms stemming from disparities in prevalence, presentation, and annotation. Our causal analysis underscores how current mitigation methods tackle only a narrow and often unrealistic subset of scenarios. We provide a practical three-step framework for reasoning about fairness in medical imaging, supporting the development of safe and equitable AI prediction models.

Variances in ad impression outcomes across demographic groups are increasingly considered to be potentially indicative of algorithmic bias in personalized ads systems. While there are many definitions of fairness that could be applicable in the context of personalized systems, we present a framework which we call the Variance Reduction System (VRS) for achieving more equitable outcomes in Meta's ads systems. VRS seeks to achieve a distribution of impressions with respect to selected protected class (PC) attributes that more closely aligns the demographics of an ad's eligible audience (a function of advertiser targeting criteria) with the audience who sees that ad, in a privacy-preserving manner. We first define metrics to quantify fairness gaps in terms of ad impression variances with respect to PC attributes including gender and estimated race. We then present the VRS for re-ranking ads in an impression variance-aware manner. We evaluate VRS via extensive simulations over different parameter choices and study the effect of the VRS on the chosen fairness metric. We finally present online A/B testing results from applying VRS to Meta's ads systems, concluding with a discussion of future work. We have deployed the VRS to all users in the US for housing ads, resulting in significant improvement in our fairness metric. VRS is the first large-scale deployed framework for pursuing fairness for multiple PC attributes in online advertising.

Racial Disparities in the Enforcement of Marijuana Violations in the US

Bradley Butcher, Chris Robinson, Miri Zilka +3

Racial disparities in US drug arrest rates have been observed for decades, but their causes and policy implications are still contested. Some have argued that the disparities largely reflect differences in drug use between racial groups, while others have hypothesized that discriminatory enforcement policies and police practices play a significant role. In this work, we analyze racial disparities in the enforcement of marijuana violations in the US. Using data from the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) and the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) programs, we investigate whether marijuana usage and purchasing behaviors can explain the racial composition of offenders in police records. We examine potential driving mechanisms behind these disparities and the extent to which county-level socioeconomic factors are associated with corresponding disparities. Our results indicate that the significant racial disparities in reported incidents and arrests cannot be explained by differences in marijuana days-of-use alone. Variations in the location where marijuana is purchased and in the frequency of these purchases partially explain the observed disparities. We observe an increase in racial disparities across most counties over the last decade, with the greatest increases in states that legalized the use of marijuana within this timeframe. Income, high school graduation rate, and rate of employment positively correlate with larger racial disparities, while the rate of incarceration is negatively correlated. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of the observed racial disparities in the context of algorithmic fairness.

Comparing Human and Machine Bias in Face Recognition

Samuel Dooley, Ryan Downing, George Wei +10

Much recent research has uncovered and discussed serious concerns of bias in facial analysis technologies, finding performance disparities between groups of people based on perceived gender, skin type, lighting condition, etc. These audits are immensely important and successful at measuring algorithmic bias but have two major challenges: the audits (1) use facial recognition datasets which lack quality metadata, like LFW and CelebA, and (2) do not compare their observed algorithmic bias to the biases of their human alternatives. In this paper, we release improvements to the LFW and CelebA datasets which will enable future researchers to obtain measurements of algorithmic bias that are not tainted by major flaws in the dataset (e.g. identical images appearing in both the gallery and test set). We also use these new data to develop a series of challenging facial identification and verification questions that we administered to various algorithms and a large, balanced sample of human reviewers. We find that both computer models and human survey participants perform significantly better at the verification task, generally obtain lower accuracy rates on dark-skinned or female subjects for both tasks, and obtain higher accuracy rates when their demographics match that of the question. Computer models are observed to achieve a higher level of accuracy than the survey participants on both tasks and exhibit bias to similar degrees as the human survey participants.

In situations where explanations of black-box models may be useful, the fairness of the black-box is also often a relevant concern. However, the link between the fairness of the black-box model and the behavior of explanations for the black-box is unclear. We focus on explanations applied to tabular datasets, suggesting that explanations do not necessarily preserve the fairness properties of the black-box algorithm. In other words, explanation algorithms can ignore or obscure critical relevant properties, creating incorrect or misleading explanations. More broadly, we propose future research directions for evaluating and generating explanations such that they are informative and relevant from a fairness perspective.

There is substantial evidence that Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) algorithms can generate bias against minorities, women, and other protected classes. Federal and state laws have been enacted to protect consumers from discrimination in credit, housing, and employment, where regulators and agencies are tasked with enforcing these laws. Additionally, there are laws in place to ensure that consumers understand why they are denied access to services and products, such as consumer loans. In this article, we provide an overview of the potential benefits and risks associated with the use of algorithms and data, and focus specifically on fairness. While our observations generalize to many contexts, we focus on the fairness concerns raised in consumer credit and the legal requirements of the Equal Credit and Opportunity Act. We propose a methodology for evaluating algorithmic fairness and minimizing algorithmic bias that aligns with the provisions of federal and state anti-discrimination statutes that outlaw overt, disparate treatment, and, specifically, disparate impact discrimination. We argue that while the use of AI and ML algorithms heighten potential discrimination risks, these risks can be evaluated and mitigated, but doing so requires a deep understanding of these algorithms and the contexts and domains in which they are being used.

Who's responsible? Jointly quantifying the contribution of the learning algorithm and training data

Gal Yona, Amirata Ghorbani, James Zou

A learning algorithm $A$ trained on a dataset $D$ is revealed to have poor performance on some subpopulation at test time. Where should the responsibility for this lay? It can be argued that the data is responsible, if for example training $A$ on a more representative dataset $D'$ would have improved the performance. But it can similarly be argued that $A$ itself is at fault, if training a different variant $A'$ on the same dataset $D$ would have improved performance. As ML becomes widespread and such failure cases more common, these types of questions are proving to be far from hypothetical. With this motivation in mind, in this work we provide a rigorous formulation of the joint credit assignment problem between a learning algorithm $A$ and a dataset $D$. We propose Extended Shapley as a principled framework for this problem, and experiment empirically with how it can be used to address questions of ML accountability.

This paper presents an intelligent and transparent AI-driven system for Credit Risk Assessment using three state-of-the-art ensemble machine learning models combined with Explainable AI (XAI) techniques. The system leverages XGBoost, LightGBM, and Random Forest algorithms for predictive analysis of loan default risks, addressing the challenges of model interpretability using SHAP and LIME. Preprocessing steps include custom imputation, one-hot encoding, and standardization. Class imbalance is managed using SMOTE, and hyperparameter tuning is performed with GridSearchCV. The model is evaluated on multiple performance metrics including ROC-AUC, precision, recall, and F1-score. LightGBM emerges as the most business-optimal model with the highest accuracy and best trade off between approval and default rates. Furthermore, the system generates applicant-specific XAI visual reports and business impact summaries to ensure transparent decision-making.

Ensuring fairness in decentralized multi-agent systems presents significant challenges due to emergent biases, systemic inefficiencies, and conflicting agent incentives. This paper provides a comprehensive survey of fairness in multi-agent AI, introducing a novel framework where fairness is treated as a dynamic, emergent property of agent interactions. The framework integrates fairness constraints, bias mitigation strategies, and incentive mechanisms to align autonomous agent behaviors with societal values while balancing efficiency and robustness. Through empirical validation, we demonstrate that incorporating fairness constraints results in more equitable decision-making. This work bridges the gap between AI ethics and system design, offering a foundation for accountable, transparent, and socially responsible multi-agent AI systems.

Responsible AI (RAI) has emerged as a major focus across industry, policymaking, and academia, aiming to mitigate the risks and maximize the benefits of AI, both on an organizational and societal level. This study explores the global state of RAI through one of the most extensive surveys to date on the topic, surveying 1000 organizations across 20 industries and 19 geographical regions. We define a conceptual RAI maturity model for organizations to map how well they implement organizational and operational RAI measures. Based on this model, the survey assesses the adoption of system-level measures to mitigate identified risks related to, for example, discrimination, reliability, or privacy, and also covers key organizational processes pertaining to governance, risk management, and monitoring and control. The study highlights the expanding AI risk landscape, emphasizing the need for comprehensive risk mitigation strategies. The findings also reveal significant strides towards RAI maturity, but we also identify gaps in RAI implementation that could lead to increased (public) risks from AI systems. This research offers a structured approach to assess and improve RAI practices globally and underscores the critical need for bridging the gap between RAI planning and execution to ensure AI advancement aligns with human welfare and societal benefits.

It has been shown that many generative models inherit and amplify societal biases. To date, there is no uniform/systematic agreed standard to control/adjust for these biases. This study examines the presence and manipulation of societal biases in leading text-to-image models: Stable Diffusion, DALL-E 3, and Adobe Firefly. Through a comprehensive analysis combining base prompts with modifiers and their sequencing, we uncover the nuanced ways these AI technologies encode biases across gender, race, geography, and region/culture. Our findings reveal the challenges and potential of prompt engineering in controlling biases, highlighting the critical need for ethical AI development promoting diversity and inclusivity. This work advances AI ethics by not only revealing the nuanced dynamics of bias in text-to-image generation models but also by offering a novel framework for future research in controlling bias. Our contributions-panning comparative analyses, the strategic use of prompt modifiers, the exploration of prompt sequencing effects, and the introduction of a bias sensitivity taxonomy-lay the groundwork for the development of common metrics and standard analyses for evaluating whether and how future AI models exhibit and respond to requests to adjust for inherent biases.

The deployment of autonomous vehicles (AVs) is rapidly expanding to numerous cities. At the heart of AVs, the object detection module assumes a paramount role, directly influencing all downstream decision-making tasks by considering the presence of nearby pedestrians, vehicles, and more. Despite high accuracy of pedestrians detected on held-out datasets, the potential presence of algorithmic bias in such object detectors, particularly in challenging weather conditions, remains unclear. This study provides a comprehensive empirical analysis of fairness in detecting pedestrians in a state-of-the-art transformer-based object detector. In addition to classical metrics, we introduce novel probability-based metrics to measure various intricate properties of object detection. Leveraging the state-of-the-art FACET dataset and the Carla high-fidelity vehicle simulator, our analysis explores the effect of protected attributes such as gender, skin tone, and body size on object detection performance in varying environmental conditions such as ambient darkness and fog. Our quantitative analysis reveals how the previously overlooked yet intuitive factors, such as the distribution of demographic groups in the scene, the severity of weather, the pedestrians' proximity to the AV, among others, affect object detection performance. Our code is available at https://github.com/bimsarapathiraja/fair-AV.