Causal foundations of bias, disparity and fairness

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2207.13665v3
• Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2024 06:54:26 GMT
• Title: Causal foundations of bias, disparity and fairness
• Authors: V. A. Traag, L. Waltman,
• Abstract summary: We propose to define bias as a direct causal effect that is unjustified. We propose to define disparity as a direct or indirect causal effect that includes a bias. Our proposed definitions can be used to study biases and disparities in a more rigorous and systematic way.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The study of biases, such as gender or racial biases, is an important topic in the social and behavioural sciences. However, the literature does not always clearly define the concept. Definitions of bias are often ambiguous or not provided at all. To study biases in a precise manner, it is important to have a well-defined concept of bias. We propose to define bias as a direct causal effect that is unjustified. We propose to define the closely related concept of disparity as a direct or indirect causal effect that includes a bias. Our proposed definitions can be used to study biases and disparities in a more rigorous and systematic way. We compare our definitions of bias and disparity with various criteria of fairness introduced in the artificial intelligence literature. In addition, we discuss how our definitions relate to discrimination. We illustrate our definitions of bias and disparity in two case studies, focusing on gender bias in science and racial bias in police shootings. Our proposed definitions aim to contribute to a better appreciation of the causal intricacies of studies of biases and disparities. We hope that this will also promote an improved understanding of the policy implications of such studies.

Related papers

• Survey of Bias In Text-to-Image Generation: Definition, Evaluation, and Mitigation [47.770531682802314]
  Even simple prompts could cause T2I models to exhibit conspicuous social bias in generated images. We present the first extensive survey on bias in T2I generative models. We discuss how these works define, evaluate, and mitigate different aspects of bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-01T10:19:05Z)
• Is There a One-Model-Fits-All Approach to Information Extraction? Revisiting Task Definition Biases [62.806300074459116]
  Definition bias is a negative phenomenon that can mislead models. We identify two types of definition bias in IE: bias among information extraction datasets and bias between information extraction datasets and instruction tuning datasets. We propose a multi-stage framework consisting of definition bias measurement, bias-aware fine-tuning, and task-specific bias mitigation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-25T03:19:20Z)
• Semantic Properties of cosine based bias scores for word embeddings [48.0753688775574]
  We propose requirements for bias scores to be considered meaningful for quantifying biases. We analyze cosine based scores from the literature with regard to these requirements. We underline these findings with experiments to show that the bias scores' limitations have an impact in the application case.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-27T20:31:10Z)
• Dissecting Causal Biases [0.0]
  This paper focuses on a class of bias originating in the way training data is generated and/or collected. Four sources of bias are considered, namely, confounding, selection, measurement, and interaction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-20T09:12:10Z)
• Fair Enough: Standardizing Evaluation and Model Selection for Fairness Research in NLP [64.45845091719002]
  Modern NLP systems exhibit a range of biases, which a growing literature on model debiasing attempts to correct. This paper seeks to clarify the current situation and plot a course for meaningful progress in fair learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-11T14:54:00Z)
• Differential Bias: On the Perceptibility of Stance Imbalance in Argumentation [35.2494622378896]
  We ask whether an "absolute bias classification" is a promising goal at all. To decide whether a text has crossed the proverbial line between non-biased and biased is subjective. A prerequisite for this kind of bias model is the ability of humans to perceive relative bias differences in the first place.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-13T12:48:07Z)
• Toward Understanding Bias Correlations for Mitigation in NLP [34.956581421295]
  This work aims to provide a first systematic study toward understanding bias correlations in mitigation. We examine bias mitigation in two common NLP tasks -- toxicity detection and word embeddings. Our findings suggest that biases are correlated and present scenarios in which independent debiasing approaches may be insufficient.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-24T22:48:47Z)
• The SAME score: Improved cosine based bias score for word embeddings [49.75878234192369]
  We introduce SAME, a novel bias score for semantic bias in embeddings. We show that SAME is capable of measuring semantic bias and identify potential causes for social bias in downstream tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-28T09:28:13Z)
• Robustness and Reliability of Gender Bias Assessment in Word Embeddings: The Role of Base Pairs [23.574442657224008]
  It has been shown that word embeddings can exhibit gender bias, and various methods have been proposed to quantify this. Previous work has leveraged gender word pairs to measure bias and extract biased analogies. We show that the reliance on these gendered pairs has strong limitations. In particular, the well-known analogy "man is to computer-programmer as woman is to homemaker" is due to word similarity rather than societal bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-06T16:09:05Z)
• Towards Debiasing Sentence Representations [109.70181221796469]
  We show that Sent-Debias is effective in removing biases, and at the same time, preserves performance on sentence-level downstream tasks. We hope that our work will inspire future research on characterizing and removing social biases from widely adopted sentence representations for fairer NLP.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-16T04:22:30Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.