Representation-based fairness evaluation and bias correction robustness assessment in neural networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: While machine learning has achieved high predictive performance in many domains, decisions may still be biased and unfair regarding specific demographic groups characterized by sensitive attributes such as gender, age, or race. Objectives: In this paper, we introduce a novel approach to assess model fairness and bias correction robustness based on Computational Profile Distance (CPD) analysis with respect to sensitive attributes. Methods: To study model fairness, we quantify the model’s representation difference using the computational profile learned from different subgroups (e.g., male and female) on the individual and group level. To analyze the robustness of bias correction outcomes, we compare the correction suggestions provided based on confidence (i.e., softmax score) and likelihood (i.e., CPD). Results: To demonstrate the potential of the proposed approach, experiments have been performed using 24 models targeting 3 datasets used in previous fairness studies. Our experiments showed that computational profile distributions can effectively address model fairness from a representation perspective. Further, the experiments indicated that confidence-based bias correction decisions can vary largely from likelihood-based ones, and we should take both suggestions into account to obtain robust outcomes. Conclusion: Demonstrated with a set of experiments, our CPD-based approaches can help users build their trust in fairness assessment and bias mitigation of AI decisions, in ethically sensitive domains such as human resources, finance, health, and more.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".