How do you know if your data is fair? And if it isn't, what can you do about it? Machine learning models are increasingly used to make high-stakes decisions, from predicting who gets a loan to estimating the likelihood that someone will reoffend. But these models are only as good as the data they learn from [Shahbazi 2023]. If the training data is biased, the model's decisions will likely be biased too [Hort 2024, Pagano 2023].

Radio frequency interference (RFI) is a persistent contaminant in terrestrial radio astronomy. While new radio interferometers are becoming operational, novel sources of RFI are also emerging. In order to strengthen the mitigation of RFI in modern radio interferometers, we propose an on-line RFI mitigation scheme that can be run in the correlator of such interferometers. We combine statistics based on the energy as well as the polarization alignment of the correlated signal to develop an on-line RFI mitigation scheme that can be applied to a data stream produced by the correlator in real-time, especially targeted at low duty-cycle or transient RFI detection. In order to improve the computational efficiency, we explore the use of both single precision and half precision floating point operations in implementing the RFI mitigation algorithm. This ideally suits its deployment in accelerator computing devices such as graphics processing units (GPUs) as used by the LOFAR correlator. We provide results based on real data to demonstrate the efficacy of the proposed method.

Machine learning (ML) algorithms play a crucial role in decision making across diverse fields such as healthcare, finance, education, and law enforcement. Despite their widespread adoption, these systems raise ethical and social concerns due to potential biases and fairness issues. This study focuses on evaluating and improving the fairness of Computer Vision and Natural Language Processing (NLP) models applied to unstructured datasets, emphasizing how biased predictions can reinforce existing systemic inequalities. A publicly available dataset from Kaggle was utilized to simulate a practical scenario for examining fairness in ML workflows. To address and mitigate biases, the study employed two leading fairness libraries: Fairlearn by Microsoft, and AIF360 by IBM. These tools offer comprehensive frameworks for fairness analysis, including metrics evaluation, result visualization, and bias mitigation techniques. The research aims to measure bias levels in ML models, compare the effectiveness of these fairness libraries, and provide actionable recommendations for practitioners. The results demonstrate that each library possesses distinct strengths and limitations in evaluating and mitigating fairness. By systematically analyzing these tools, the study contributes valuable insights to the growing field of ML fairness, offering practical guidance for integrating fairness solutions into real world applications. This research underscores the importance of building more equitable and responsible machine learning systems.

With fairness concerns gaining significant attention in Machine Learning (ML), several bias mitigation techniques have been proposed, often compared against each other to find the best method. These benchmarking efforts tend to use a common setup for evaluation under the assumption that providing a uniform environment ensures a fair comparison. However, bias mitigation techniques are sensitive to hyperparameter choices, random seeds, feature selection, etc., meaning that comparison on just one setting can unfairly favour certain algorithms. In this work, we show significant variance in fairness achieved by several algorithms and the influence of the learning pipeline on fairness scores. We highlight that most bias mitigation techniques can achieve comparable performance, given the freedom to perform hyperparameter optimization, suggesting that the choice of the evaluation parameters-rather than the mitigation technique itself-can sometimes create the perceived superiority of one method over another. We hope our work encourages future research on how various choices in the lifecycle of developing an algorithm impact fairness, and trends that guide the selection of appropriate algorithms.

While researchers have been trying to understand the stress and fatigue among pilots, especially pilot trainees, and to develop stress/fatigue models to automate the process of detecting stress/fatigue, they often do not consider biases such as sex in those models. However, in a critical profession like aviation, where the demographic distribution is disproportionately skewed to one sex, it is urgent to mitigate biases for fair and safe model predictions. In this work, we investigate the perceived stress/fatigue of 69 college students, including 40 pilot trainees with around 63% male. We construct models with decision trees first without bias mitigation and then with bias mitigation using a threshold optimizer with demographic parity and equalized odds constraints 30 times with random instances. Using bias mitigation, we achieve improvements of 88.31% (demographic parity difference) and 54.26% (equalized odds difference), which are also found to be statistically significant.

In the healthcare industry, researchers have been developing machine learning models to automate diagnosing patients with respiratory illnesses based on their breathing patterns. However, these models do not consider the demographic biases, particularly sex bias, that often occur when models are trained with a skewed patient dataset. Hence, it is essential in such an important industry to reduce this bias so that models can make fair diagnoses. In this work, we examine the bias in models used to detect breathing patterns of two major respiratory diseases, i.e., chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and COVID-19. Using decision tree models trained with audio recordings of breathing patterns obtained from two open-source datasets consisting of 29 COPD and 680 COVID-19-positive patients, we analyze the effect of sex bias on the models. With a threshold optimizer and two constraints (demographic parity and equalized odds) to mitigate the bias, we witness 81.43% (demographic parity difference) and 71.81% (equalized odds difference) improvements. These findings are statistically significant.

Machine learning models are increasingly being used in important decision-making software such as approving bank loans, recommending criminal sentencing, hiring employees, and so on. It is important to ensure the fairness of these models so that no discrimination is made based on protected attribute (e.g., race, sex, age) while decision making. Algorithms have been developed to measure unfairness and mitigate them to a certain extent. In this paper, we have focused on the empirical evaluation of fairness and mitigations on real-world machine learning models. We have created a benchmark of 40 top-rated models from Kaggle used for 5 different tasks, and then using a comprehensive set of fairness metrics, evaluated their fairness. Then, we have applied 7 mitigation techniques on these models and analyzed the fairness, mitigation results, and impacts on performance. We have found that some model optimization techniques result in inducing unfairness in the models. On the other hand, although there are some fairness control mechanisms in machine learning libraries, they are not documented. The mitigation algorithm also exhibit common patterns such as mitigation in the post-processing is often costly (in terms of performance) and mitigation in the pre-processing stage is preferred in most cases. We have also presented different trade-off choices of fairness mitigation decisions. Our study suggests future research directions to reduce the gap between theoretical fairness aware algorithms and the software engineering methods to leverage them in practice.

We used Python's Flask framework for building the service and exposed a REST API that generates a bias report based on the following input parameters from a user: the dataset name, the protected attributes, the privileged and unprivileged groups, the chosen fairness metrics, and the chosen mitigation algorithm, if any. With these inputs, the back-end then runs a series of steps to 1) split the dataset into training, development, and validation sets; 2) train a logistic regression classifier on the training set; 3) run the bias-checking metrics on the classifier against the test dataset; 4) if a mitigation algorithm is chosen, run the mitigation algorithm with the appropriate pipeline (pre-processing, in-processing, or post-processing). The end result is then cached so that if the exact same inputs are provided, the result can be directly retrieved from cache and no additional computation is needed. The reason to truly use the toolkit code in serving the Web application rather than having a pre-computed lookup table of results is twofold: we want to make the app a real representation of the underlying capabilities (in fact, creating the Web app helped us debug a few items in the code), and we also avoid any issues of synchronizing updates to the metrics, explainers, and algorithms with the results shown: synchronization is automatic. Currently, the service is limited to three built-in datasets, but it can be expanded to support the user's own data upload. The service is also limited to building logistic regression classifiers, but again this can be expanded. Such expansions can be more easily implemented if this fairness service is integrated into a full AI suite that provides various classifier options and data storage solutions.

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) were originally designed to help with evidence-based management of a single disease and such a single disease focus has impacted research on CPG computerization. This computerization is mostly concerned with supporting different representation formats and identifying potential inconsistencies in the definitions of CPGs. However, one of the biggest challenges facing physicians is the personalization of multiple CPGs to comorbid patients. Various research initiatives propose ways of mitigating adverse interactions in concurrently applied CPGs, however, there are no attempts to develop a generalized framework for mitigation that captures generic characteristics of the problem while handling nuances such as precedence relationships. In this paper we present our research towards developing a mitigation framework that relies on a first-order logic-based representation and related theorem proving and model finding techniques. The application of the proposed framework is illustrated with a simple clinical example.