Mitigating Biases in Collective Decision-Making: Enhancing Performance in the Face of Fake News

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.08829v1
• Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 12:08:08 GMT
• Title: Mitigating Biases in Collective Decision-Making: Enhancing Performance in the Face of Fake News
• Authors: Axel Abels, Elias Fernandez Domingos, Ann Nowé, Tom Lenaerts,
• Abstract summary: We study the influence these biases can have in the pervasive problem of fake news by evaluating human participants' capacity to identify false headlines. By focusing on headlines involving sensitive characteristics, we gather a comprehensive dataset to explore how human responses are shaped by their biases. We show that demographic factors, headline categories, and the manner in which information is presented significantly influence errors in human judgment.
• Score: 4.413331329339185
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Individual and social biases undermine the effectiveness of human advisers by inducing judgment errors which can disadvantage protected groups. In this paper, we study the influence these biases can have in the pervasive problem of fake news by evaluating human participants' capacity to identify false headlines. By focusing on headlines involving sensitive characteristics, we gather a comprehensive dataset to explore how human responses are shaped by their biases. Our analysis reveals recurring individual biases and their permeation into collective decisions. We show that demographic factors, headline categories, and the manner in which information is presented significantly influence errors in human judgment. We then use our collected data as a benchmark problem on which we evaluate the efficacy of adaptive aggregation algorithms. In addition to their improved accuracy, our results highlight the interactions between the emergence of collective intelligence and the mitigation of participant biases.

Related papers

• Practical Guide for Causal Pathways and Sub-group Disparity Analysis [1.8974791957167259]
  We use causal disparity analysis to quantify and examine the causal interplay between sensitive attributes and outcomes. Our two-step investigation focuses on datasets where race serves as the sensitive attribute. We demonstrate that the sub-groups identified by our approach to be affected the most by disparities are the ones with the largest ML classification errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-02T22:51:01Z)
• Decoding Susceptibility: Modeling Misbelief to Misinformation Through a Computational Approach [63.67533153887132]
  Susceptibility to misinformation describes the degree of belief in unverifiable claims that is not observable. Existing susceptibility studies heavily rely on self-reported beliefs. We propose a computational approach to model users' latent susceptibility levels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T07:22:56Z)
• Online Decision Mediation [72.80902932543474]
  Consider learning a decision support assistant to serve as an intermediary between (oracle) expert behavior and (imperfect) human behavior. In clinical diagnosis, fully-autonomous machine behavior is often beyond ethical affordances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-28T05:59:43Z)
• Measuring the Effect of Influential Messages on Varying Personas [67.1149173905004]
  We present a new task, Response Forecasting on Personas for News Media, to estimate the response a persona might have upon seeing a news message. The proposed task not only introduces personalization in the modeling but also predicts the sentiment polarity and intensity of each response. This enables more accurate and comprehensive inference on the mental state of the persona.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-25T21:01:00Z)
• When mitigating bias is unfair: multiplicity and arbitrariness in algorithmic group fairness [8.367620276482056]
  We introduce the FRAME (FaiRness Arbitrariness and Multiplicity Evaluation) framework, which evaluates bias mitigation through five dimensions. Applying FRAME to various bias mitigation approaches across key datasets allows us to exhibit significant differences in the behaviors of debiasing methods. These findings highlight the limitations of current fairness criteria and the inherent arbitrariness in the debiasing process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-14T16:53:52Z)
• D-BIAS: A Causality-Based Human-in-the-Loop System for Tackling Algorithmic Bias [57.87117733071416]
  We propose D-BIAS, a visual interactive tool that embodies human-in-the-loop AI approach for auditing and mitigating social biases. A user can detect the presence of bias against a group by identifying unfair causal relationships in the causal network. For each interaction, say weakening/deleting a biased causal edge, the system uses a novel method to simulate a new (debiased) dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-10T03:41:48Z)
• Measuring Fairness Under Unawareness of Sensitive Attributes: A Quantification-Based Approach [131.20444904674494]
  We tackle the problem of measuring group fairness under unawareness of sensitive attributes. We show that quantification approaches are particularly suited to tackle the fairness-under-unawareness problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-17T13:45:46Z)
• Learning Bias-Invariant Representation by Cross-Sample Mutual Information Minimization [77.8735802150511]
  We propose a cross-sample adversarial debiasing (CSAD) method to remove the bias information misused by the target task. The correlation measurement plays a critical role in adversarial debiasing and is conducted by a cross-sample neural mutual information estimator. We conduct thorough experiments on publicly available datasets to validate the advantages of the proposed method over state-of-the-art approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-11T21:17:02Z)
• Improving Fairness of AI Systems with Lossless De-biasing [15.039284892391565]
  Mitigating bias in AI systems to increase overall fairness has emerged as an important challenge. We present an information-lossless de-biasing technique that targets the scarcity of data in the disadvantaged group.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-10T17:38:38Z)
• Detection and Mitigation of Bias in Ted Talk Ratings [3.3598755777055374]
  Implicit bias is a behavioral conditioning that leads us to attribute predetermined characteristics to members of certain groups. This paper quantifies implicit bias in viewer ratings of TEDTalks, a diverse social platform assessing social and professional performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-02T06:13:24Z)

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.