Explanatory Debiasing: Involving Domain Experts in the Data Generation Process to Mitigate Representation Bias in AI Systems

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2501.01441v2
• Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2025 08:45:05 GMT
• Title: Explanatory Debiasing: Involving Domain Experts in the Data Generation Process to Mitigate Representation Bias in AI Systems
• Authors: Aditya Bhattacharya, Simone Stumpf, Robin De Croon, Katrien Verbert,
• Abstract summary: Representation bias is one of the most common types of biases in artificial intelligence (AI) systems.<n>This paper introduces a set of generic design guidelines for effectively involving domain experts in representation debiasing.<n>Our findings show that involving domain experts can reduce representation bias without compromising model accuracy.
• Score: 4.026808162893866
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Representation bias is one of the most common types of biases in artificial intelligence (AI) systems, causing AI models to perform poorly on underrepresented data segments. Although AI practitioners use various methods to reduce representation bias, their effectiveness is often constrained by insufficient domain knowledge in the debiasing process. To address this gap, this paper introduces a set of generic design guidelines for effectively involving domain experts in representation debiasing. We instantiated our proposed guidelines in a healthcare-focused application and evaluated them through a comprehensive mixed-methods user study with 35 healthcare experts. Our findings show that involving domain experts can reduce representation bias without compromising model accuracy. Based on our findings, we also offer recommendations for developers to build robust debiasing systems guided by our generic design guidelines, ensuring more effective inclusion of domain experts in the debiasing process.

Related papers

• Pro-AI Bias in Large Language Models [17.86909605285373]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly employed for decision-support across multiple domains.<n>We investigate whether these models display a systematic preferential bias in favor of artificial intelligence (AI) itself.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-20T09:03:57Z)
• Echoes of AI Harms: A Human-LLM Synergistic Framework for Bias-Driven Harm Anticipation [1.5892420496333068]
  ECHO is a novel framework for proactive AI harm anticipation.<n>It enables early-stage detection of bias-to-harm pathways.<n>We validate ECHO in two high-stakes domains (disease diagnosis and hiring)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-27T07:25:21Z)
• Behind the Screens: Uncovering Bias in AI-Driven Video Interview Assessments Using Counterfactuals [0.0]
  We introduce a counterfactual-based framework to evaluate and quantify bias in AI-driven personality assessments.<n>Our approach employs generative adversarial networks (GANs) to generate counterfactual representations of job applicants.<n>This work provides a scalable tool for fairness auditing of commercial AI hiring platforms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-17T18:46:14Z)
• Exploring Bias in over 100 Text-to-Image Generative Models [49.60774626839712]
  We investigate bias trends in text-to-image generative models over time, focusing on the increasing availability of models through open platforms like Hugging Face. We assess bias across three key dimensions: (i) distribution bias, (ii) generative hallucination, and (iii) generative miss-rate. Our findings indicate that artistic and style-transferred models exhibit significant bias, whereas foundation models, benefiting from broader training distributions, are becoming progressively less biased.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-11T03:40:44Z)
• Thinking Racial Bias in Fair Forgery Detection: Models, Datasets and Evaluations [63.52709761339949]
  We first contribute a dedicated dataset called the Fair Forgery Detection (FairFD) dataset, where we prove the racial bias of public state-of-the-art (SOTA) methods. We design novel metrics including Approach Averaged Metric and Utility Regularized Metric, which can avoid deceptive results. We also present an effective and robust post-processing technique, Bias Pruning with Fair Activations (BPFA), which improves fairness without requiring retraining or weight updates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-19T14:53:18Z)
• Debiased Recommendation with Noisy Feedback [41.38490962524047]
  We study intersectional threats to the unbiased learning of the prediction model from data MNAR and OME in the collected data. First, we design OME-EIB, OME-IPS, and OME-DR estimators, which largely extend the existing estimators to combat OME in real-world recommendation scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T23:42:18Z)
• DeNetDM: Debiasing by Network Depth Modulation [6.550893772143]
  We present DeNetDM, a novel debiasing method that uses network depth modulation as a way of developing robustness to spurious correlations. Our method requires no bias annotations or explicit data augmentation while performing on par with approaches that require either or both. We demonstrate that DeNetDM outperforms existing debiasing techniques on both synthetic and real-world datasets by 5%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-28T22:17:19Z)
• Unmasking Bias in AI: A Systematic Review of Bias Detection and Mitigation Strategies in Electronic Health Record-based Models [6.300835344100545]
  Leveraging artificial intelligence in conjunction with electronic health records holds transformative potential to improve healthcare. Yet, addressing bias in AI, which risks worsening healthcare disparities, cannot be overlooked. This study reviews methods to detect and mitigate diverse forms of bias in AI models developed using EHR data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T18:29:15Z)
• Fast Model Debias with Machine Unlearning [54.32026474971696]
  Deep neural networks might behave in a biased manner in many real-world scenarios. Existing debiasing methods suffer from high costs in bias labeling or model re-training. We propose a fast model debiasing framework (FMD) which offers an efficient approach to identify, evaluate and remove biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-19T08:10:57Z)
• Causality and Independence Enhancement for Biased Node Classification [56.38828085943763]
  We propose a novel Causality and Independence Enhancement (CIE) framework, applicable to various graph neural networks (GNNs) Our approach estimates causal and spurious features at the node representation level and mitigates the influence of spurious correlations. Our approach CIE not only significantly enhances the performance of GNNs but outperforms state-of-the-art debiased node classification methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-14T13:56:24Z)
• Unsupervised Learning of Unbiased Visual Representations [12.690228982893]
  Deep neural networks often struggle to learn robust representations in the presence of dataset biases. Existing approaches to address this problem typically involve explicit supervision of bias attributes or reliance on prior knowledge about the biases. We present a fully unsupervised debiasing framework with three key steps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-26T10:51:50Z)
• Information-Theoretic Bias Reduction via Causal View of Spurious Correlation [71.9123886505321]
  We propose an information-theoretic bias measurement technique through a causal interpretation of spurious correlation. We present a novel debiasing framework against the algorithmic bias, which incorporates a bias regularization loss. The proposed bias measurement and debiasing approaches are validated in diverse realistic scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-10T01:19:31Z)
• 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)
• Fair Representation Learning for Heterogeneous Information Networks [35.80367469624887]
  We propose a comprehensive set of de-biasing methods for fair HINs representation learning. We study the behavior of these algorithms, especially their capability in balancing the trade-off between fairness and prediction accuracy. We evaluate the performance of the proposed methods in an automated career counseling application.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-18T08:28:18Z)
• Leveraging Expert Consistency to Improve Algorithmic Decision Support [62.61153549123407]
  We explore the use of historical expert decisions as a rich source of information that can be combined with observed outcomes to narrow the construct gap. We propose an influence function-based methodology to estimate expert consistency indirectly when each case in the data is assessed by a single expert. Our empirical evaluation, using simulations in a clinical setting and real-world data from the child welfare domain, indicates that the proposed approach successfully narrows the construct gap.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-24T05:40:29Z)
• Towards Debiasing NLU Models from Unknown Biases [70.31427277842239]
  NLU models often exploit biases to achieve high dataset-specific performance without properly learning the intended task. We present a self-debiasing framework that prevents models from mainly utilizing biases without knowing them in advance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-25T15:49:39Z)

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.