Datasets can be biased due to societal inequities, human biases, under-representation of minorities, etc. Our goal is to certify that models produced by a learning algorithm are pointwise-robust to dataset biases. This is a challenging problem: it entails learning models for a large, or even infinite, number of datasets, ensuring that they all produce the same prediction. We focus on decision-tree learning due to the interpretable nature of the models. Our approach allows programmatically specifying \emph{bias models} across a variety of dimensions (e.g., label-flipping or missing data), composing types of bias, and targeting bias towards a specific group. To certify robustness, we use a novel symbolic technique to evaluate a decision-tree learner on a large, or infinite, number of datasets, certifying that each and every dataset produces the same prediction for a specific test point. We evaluate our approach on datasets that are commonly used in the fairness literature, and demonstrate our approach's viability on a range of bias models.

Datasets can be biased due to societal inequities, human biases, under-representation of minorities, etc.

Due to the rapid growth of social media platforms, these tools have become essential for monitoring information during ongoing disaster events. However, extracting valuable insights requires real-time processing of vast amounts of data. A major challenge in existing systems is their exposure to event-related biases, which negatively affects their ability to generalize to emerging events. While recent advancements in debiasing and causal learning offer promising solutions, they remain underexplored in the disaster event domain. In this work, we approach bias mitigation through a causal lens and propose a method to reduce event- and domain-related biases, enhancing generalization to future events. Our approach outperforms multiple baselines by up to +1.9% F1 and significantly improves a PLM-based classifier across three disaster classification tasks.

Do the main claims made in the abstract and introduction accurately reflect the paper's Did you discuss any potential negative societal impacts of your work? If you ran experiments... (a) Did you include the code, data, and instructions needed to reproduce the main experimental results (either in the supplemental material or as a URL)? [Y es] Link provided Did you specify all the training details (e.g., data subsets, hyperparameters, how they Did you report error bars (e.g., with respect to the random seed after running experiments multiple times)? Did you include the total amount of compute and the type of resources used (e.g., type Did you include any new assets either in the supplemental material or as a URL? [No] Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're If you used crowdsourcing or conducted research with human subjects... (a) All experiments were run on a GeForce RTX 2080 Ti GPU. The model used in the toy experiment follows the one used in Belinkov et al. (2019b). These representations are concatenated and passed to a one-hidden-layer feed-forward network for binary classification.

Unconscious bias has been shown to influence how we assess our peers, with consequences for hiring, promotions and admissions. In this work, we focus on affinity bias, the component of unconscious bias which leads us to prefer people who are similar to us, despite no deliberate intention of favoritism. In a world where the people hired today become part of the hiring committee of tomorrow, we are particularly interested in understanding (and mitigating) how affinity bias affects this feedback loop. This problem has two distinctive features: 1) we only observe the biased value of a candidate, but we want to optimize with respect to their real value 2) the bias towards a candidate with a specific set of traits depends on the fraction of people in the hiring committee with the same set of traits. We introduce a new bandits variant that exhibits those two features, which we call affinity bandits. Unsurprisingly, classical algorithms such as UCB often fail to identify the best arm in this setting. We prove a new instance-dependent regret lower bound, which is larger than that in the standard bandit setting by a multiplicative function of $K$. Since we treat rewards that are time-varying and dependent on the policy's past actions, deriving this lower bound requires developing proof techniques beyond the standard bandit techniques. Finally, we design an elimination-style algorithm which nearly matches this regret, despite never observing the real rewards.

Datasets can be biased due to societal inequities, human biases, under-representation of minorities, etc. Our goal is to certify that models produced by a learning algorithm are pointwise-robust to dataset biases. This is a challenging problem: it entails learning models for a large, or even infinite, number of datasets, ensuring that they all produce the same prediction. We focus on decision-tree learning due to the interpretable nature of the models. Our approach allows programmatically specifying \emph{bias models} across a variety of dimensions (e.g., label-flipping or missing data), composing types of bias, and targeting bias towards a specific group.