Emily F. Wong

Amalia Ionescu, Jose Guadalupe Hernandez, Jui-Hsuan Chang et al.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used in clinical settings, yet limited oversight and domain expertise can allow algorithmic bias and safety risks to persist. This study evaluates whether an agentic AI system can support auditing biomedical machine learning models for fairness in early-onset colorectal cancer (EO-CRC), a condition with documented demographic disparities. We implemented a two-agent architecture consisting of a Domain Expert Agent that synthesizes literature on EO-CRC disparities and a Fairness Consultant Agent that recommends sensitive attributes and fairness metrics for model evaluation. An ablation study compared three Ollama large language models (8B, 20B, and 120B parameters) across three configurations: pretrained LLM-only, Agent without Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), and Agent with RAG. Across models, the Agent with RAG achieved the highest semantic similarity to expert-derived reference statements, particularly for disparity identification, suggesting agentic systems with retrieval may help scale fairness auditing in clinical AI.

Anil K. Saini, Jose Guadalupe Hernandez, Emily F. Wong et al.

Machine learning models trained on real-world data may inadvertently make biased predictions that negatively impact marginalized communities. Reweighting is a method that can mitigate such bias in model predictions by assigning a weight to each data point used during model training. In this paper, we compare three methods for generating these weights: (1) evolving them using a Genetic Algorithm (GA), (2) computing them using only dataset characteristics, and (3) assigning equal weights to all data points. Model performance under each strategy was evaluated using paired predictive and fairness metrics, which also served as optimization objectives for the GA during evolution. Specifically, we used two predictive metrics (accuracy and area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve) and two fairness metrics (demographic parity difference and subgroup false negative fairness). Using experiments on eleven publicly available datasets (including two medical datasets), we show that evolved sample weights can produce models that achieve better trade-offs between fairness and predictive performance than alternative weighting methods. However, the magnitude of these benefits depends strongly on the choice of optimization objectives. Our experiments reveal that optimizing with accuracy and demographic parity difference metrics yields the largest number of datasets for which evolved weights are significantly better than other weighting strategies in optimizing both objectives.