As machine learning (ML) algorithms are increasingly used in medical image analysis, concerns have emerged about their potential biases against certain social groups. Although many approaches have been proposed to ensure the fairness of ML models, most existing works focus only on medical image diagnosis tasks, such as image classification and segmentation, and overlooked prognosis scenarios, which involve predicting the likely outcome or progression of a medical condition over time. To address this gap, we introduce FairTTE, the first comprehensive framework for assessing fairness in time-to-event (TTE) prediction in medical imaging. FairTTE encompasses a diverse range of imaging modalities and TTE outcomes, integrating cutting-edge TTE prediction and fairness algorithms to enable systematic and fine-grained analysis of fairness in medical image prognosis. Leveraging causal analysis techniques, FairTTE uncovers and quantifies distinct sources of bias embedded within medical imaging datasets. Our large-scale evaluation reveals that bias is pervasive across different imaging modalities and that current fairness methods offer limited mitigation. We further demonstrate a strong association between underlying bias sources and model disparities, emphasizing the need for holistic approaches that target all forms of bias. Notably, we find that fairness becomes increasingly difficult to maintain under distribution shifts, underscoring the limitations of existing solutions and the pressing need for more robust, equitable prognostic models.

The increasing use of machine learning in learning analytics (LA) has raised significant concerns around algorithmic fairness and privacy. Synthetic data has emerged as a dual-purpose tool, enhancing privacy and improving fairness in LA models. However, prior research suggests an inverse relationship between fairness and privacy, making it challenging to optimize both. This study investigates which synthetic data generators can best balance privacy and fairness, and whether pre-processing fairness algorithms, typically applied to real datasets, are effective on synthetic data. Our results highlight that the DEbiasing CAusal Fairness (DECAF) algorithm achieves the best balance between privacy and fairness. However, DECAF suffers in utility, as reflected in its predictive accuracy. Notably, we found that applying pre-processing fairness algorithms to synthetic data improves fairness even more than when applied to real data. These findings suggest that combining synthetic data generation with fairness pre-processing offers a promising approach to creating fairer LA models.

Machine learning systems are notoriously prone to biased predictions about certain demographic groups, leading to algorithmic fairness issues. Due to privacy concerns and data quality problems, some demographic information may not be available in the training data and the complex interaction of different demographics can lead to a lot of unknown minority subpopulations, which all limit the applicability of group fairness. Many existing works on fairness without demographics assume the correlation between groups and features. However, we argue that the model gradients are also valuable for fairness without demographics. In this paper, we show that the correlation between gradients and groups can help identify and improve group fairness. With an adversarial weighting architecture, we construct a graph where samples with similar gradients are connected and learn the weights of different samples from it. Unlike the surrogate grouping methods that cluster groups from features and labels as proxy sensitive attribute, our method leverages the graph structure as a soft grouping mechanism, which is much more robust to noises. The results show that our method is robust to noise and can improve fairness significantly without decreasing the overall accuracy too much.

Over the last few decades, machine learning (ML) applications have grown exponentially, yielding several benefits to society. However, these benefits are tempered with concerns of discriminatory behaviours exhibited by ML models. In this regard, fairness in machine learning has emerged as a priority research area. Consequently, several fairness metrics and algorithms have been developed to mitigate against discriminatory behaviours that ML models may possess. Yet still, very little attention has been paid to the problem of naturally occurring changes in data patterns (\textit{aka} data distributional drift), and its impact on fairness algorithms and metrics. In this work, we study this problem comprehensively by analyzing 4 fairness-unaware baseline algorithms and 7 fairness-aware algorithms, carefully curated to cover the breadth of its typology, across 5 datasets including public and proprietary data, and evaluated them using 3 predictive performance and 10 fairness metrics. In doing so, we show that (1) data distributional drift is not a trivial occurrence, and in several cases can lead to serious deterioration of fairness in so-called fair models; (2) contrary to some existing literature, the size and direction of data distributional drift is not correlated to the resulting size and direction of unfairness; and (3) choice of, and training of fairness algorithms is impacted by the effect of data distributional drift which is largely ignored in the literature. Emanating from our findings, we synthesize several policy implications of data distributional drift on fairness algorithms that can be very relevant to stakeholders and practitioners.

Training datasets for machine learning often have some form of missingness. For example, to learn a model for deciding whom to give a loan, the available training data includes individuals who were given a loan in the past, but not those who were not. This missingness, if ignored, nullifies any fairness guarantee of the training procedure when the model is deployed. Using causal graphs, we characterize the missingness mechanisms in different real-world scenarios. We show conditions under which various distributions, used in popular fairness algorithms, can or can not be recovered from the training data. Our theoretical results imply that many of these algorithms can not guarantee fairness in practice. Modeling missingness also helps to identify correct design principles for fair algorithms. For example, in multi-stage settings where decisions are made in multiple screening rounds, we use our framework to derive the minimal distributions required to design a fair algorithm. Our proposed algorithm decentralizes the decision-making process and still achieves similar performance to the optimal algorithm that requires centralization and non-recoverable distributions.

Clinical machine learning is increasingly multimodal, collected in both structured tabular formats and unstructured forms such as freetext. We propose a novel task of exploring fairness on a multimodal clinical dataset, adopting equalized odds for the downstream medical prediction tasks. To this end, we investigate a modality-agnostic fairness algorithm - equalized odds post processing - and compare it to a text-specific fairness algorithm: debiased clinical word embeddings. Despite the fact that debiased word embeddings do not explicitly address equalized odds of protected groups, we show that a text-specific approach to fairness may simultaneously achieve a good balance of performance and classical notions of fairness. We hope that our paper inspires future contributions at the critical intersection of clinical NLP and fairness. The full source code is available here: https://github.com/johntiger1/multimodal_fairness

One of the most difficult emerging problems when it comes to artificial intelligence is making sure that computers don't act like racist, sexist dicks. As it turns out, it's pretty tough to do: humans created and programmed them, and humans are often racist, sexist dicks. If we can program racism into computers, can we also train them to have a sense of fairness? Some experts believe that the large databases used to train modern machine learning programs reproduce existing human prejudices. To put it bluntly, as Microsoft researcher Kate Crawford did for the New York Times, AI has a white guy problem.