A Principled Approach for Data Bias Mitigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The widespread use of machine learning and data-driven algorithms for decision making has been steadily increasing over many years. Bias in the data can adversely affect this decision-making. We present a new mitigation strategy to address data bias. Our methods are explainable and come with mathematical guarantees of correctness. They can take advantage of new work on table discovery to find new tuples that can be added to a dataset to create real datasets that are unbiased or less biased. Our framework covers data with non-binary labels and with multiple sensitive attributes. Hence, we are able to measure and mitigate bias that does not appear over a single attribute (or feature), but only intersectionally, when considering a combination of attributes. We evaluate our techniques on publicly available datasets and provide a theoretical analysis of our results, highlighting novel insights into data bias.
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 | 0.068 | 0.157 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".