Jiaee Cheong

LG
h-index7
10papers
68citations
Novelty32%
AI Score35

10 Papers

12.5LGAug 7, 2024
Multimodal Gender Fairness in Depression Prediction: Insights on Data from the USA & China

Joseph Cameron, Jiaee Cheong, Micol Spitale et al.

Social agents and robots are increasingly being used in wellbeing settings. However, a key challenge is that these agents and robots typically rely on machine learning (ML) algorithms to detect and analyse an individual's mental wellbeing. The problem of bias and fairness in ML algorithms is becoming an increasingly greater source of concern. In concurrence, existing literature has also indicated that mental health conditions can manifest differently across genders and cultures. We hypothesise that the representation of features (acoustic, textual, and visual) and their inter-modal relations would vary among subjects from different cultures and genders, thus impacting the performance and fairness of various ML models. We present the very first evaluation of multimodal gender fairness in depression manifestation by undertaking a study on two different datasets from the USA and China. We undertake thorough statistical and ML experimentation and repeat the experiments for several different algorithms to ensure that the results are not algorithm-dependent. Our findings indicate that though there are differences between both datasets, it is not conclusive whether this is due to the difference in depression manifestation as hypothesised or other external factors such as differences in data collection methodology. Our findings further motivate a call for a more consistent and culturally aware data collection process in order to address the problem of ML bias in depression detection and to promote the development of fairer agents and robots for wellbeing.

14.9LGDec 18, 2023
Uncertainty-based Fairness Measures

Selim Kuzucu, Jiaee Cheong, Hatice Gunes et al.

Unfair predictions of machine learning (ML) models impede their broad acceptance in real-world settings. Tackling this arduous challenge first necessitates defining what it means for an ML model to be fair. This has been addressed by the ML community with various measures of fairness that depend on the prediction outcomes of the ML models, either at the group level or the individual level. These fairness measures are limited in that they utilize point predictions, neglecting their variances, or uncertainties, making them susceptible to noise, missingness and shifts in data. In this paper, we first show that an ML model may appear to be fair with existing point-based fairness measures but biased against a demographic group in terms of prediction uncertainties. Then, we introduce new fairness measures based on different types of uncertainties, namely, aleatoric uncertainty and epistemic uncertainty. We demonstrate on many datasets that (i) our uncertainty-based measures are complementary to existing measures of fairness, and (ii) they provide more insights about the underlying issues leading to bias.

22.6LGJan 16, 2025
U-Fair: Uncertainty-based Multimodal Multitask Learning for Fairer Depression Detection

Jiaee Cheong, Aditya Bangar, Sinan Kalkan et al.

Machine learning bias in mental health is becoming an increasingly pertinent challenge. Despite promising efforts indicating that multitask approaches often work better than unitask approaches, there is minimal work investigating the impact of multitask learning on performance and fairness in depression detection nor leveraged it to achieve fairer prediction outcomes. In this work, we undertake a systematic investigation of using a multitask approach to improve performance and fairness for depression detection. We propose a novel gender-based task-reweighting method using uncertainty grounded in how the PHQ-8 questionnaire is structured. Our results indicate that, although a multitask approach improves performance and fairness compared to a unitask approach, the results are not always consistent and we see evidence of negative transfer and a reduction in the Pareto frontier, which is concerning given the high-stake healthcare setting. Our proposed approach of gender-based reweighting with uncertainty improves performance and fairness and alleviates both challenges to a certain extent. Our findings on each PHQ-8 subitem task difficulty are also in agreement with the largest study conducted on the PHQ-8 subitem discrimination capacity, thus providing the very first tangible evidence linking ML findings with large-scale empirical population studies conducted on the PHQ-8.

15.5CVJan 30, 2025
Machine Learning Fairness for Depression Detection using EEG Data

Angus Man Ho Kwok, Jiaee Cheong, Sinan Kalkan et al.

This paper presents the very first attempt to evaluate machine learning fairness for depression detection using electroencephalogram (EEG) data. We conduct experiments using different deep learning architectures such as Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN), Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks, and Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) networks across three EEG datasets: Mumtaz, MODMA and Rest. We employ five different bias mitigation strategies at the pre-, in- and post-processing stages and evaluate their effectiveness. Our experimental results show that bias exists in existing EEG datasets and algorithms for depression detection, and different bias mitigation methods address bias at different levels across different fairness measures.

1.2CYSep 1, 2025
Who Owns The Robot?: Four Ethical and Socio-technical Questions about Wellbeing Robots in the Real World through Community Engagement

Minja Axelsson, Jiaee Cheong, Rune Nyrup et al.

Recent studies indicate that robotic coaches can play a crucial role in promoting wellbeing. However, the real-world deployment of wellbeing robots raises numerous ethical and socio-technical questions and concerns. To explore these questions, we undertake a community-centered investigation to examine three different communities' perspectives on using robotic wellbeing coaches in real-world environments. We frame our work as an anticipatory ethical investigation, which we undertake to better inform the development of robotic technologies with communities' opinions, with the ultimate goal of aligning robot development with public interest. We conducted workshops with three communities who are under-represented in robotics development: 1) members of the public at a science festival, 2) women computer scientists at a conference, and 3) humanities researchers interested in history and philosophy of science. In the workshops, we collected qualitative data using the Social Robot Co-Design Canvas on Ethics. We analysed the collected qualitative data with Thematic Analysis, informed by notes taken during workshops. Through our analysis, we identify four themes regarding key ethical and socio-technical questions about the real-world use of wellbeing robots. We group participants' insights and discussions around these broad thematic questions, discuss them in light of state-of-the-art literature, and highlight areas for future investigation. Finally, we provide the four questions as a broad framework that roboticists can and should use during robotic development and deployment, in order to reflect on the ethics and socio-technical dimensions of their robotic applications, and to engage in dialogue with communities of robot users. The four questions are: 1) Is the robot safe and how can we know that?, 2) Who is the robot built for and with?, 3) Who owns the robot and the data?, and 4) Why a robot?.

13.6AIOct 6, 2025
Human Behavior Atlas: Benchmarking Unified Psychological and Social Behavior Understanding

Keane Ong, Wei Dai, Carol Li et al.

Using intelligent systems to perceive psychological and social behaviors, that is, the underlying affective, cognitive, and pathological states that are manifested through observable behaviors and social interactions, remains a challenge due to their complex, multifaceted, and personalized nature. Existing work tackling these dimensions through specialized datasets and single-task systems often miss opportunities for scalability, cross-task transfer, and broader generalization. To address this gap, we curate Human Behavior Atlas, a unified benchmark of diverse behavioral tasks designed to support the development of unified models for understanding psychological and social behaviors. Human Behavior Atlas comprises over 100,000 samples spanning text, audio, and visual modalities, covering tasks on affective states, cognitive states, pathologies, and social processes. Our unification efforts can reduce redundancy and cost, enable training to scale efficiently across tasks, and enhance generalization of behavioral features across domains. On Human Behavior Atlas, we train three models: OmniSapiens-7B SFT, OmniSapiens-7B BAM, and OmniSapiens-7B RL. We show that training on Human Behavior Atlas enables models to consistently outperform existing multimodal LLMs across diverse behavioral tasks. Pretraining on Human Behavior Atlas also improves transfer to novel behavioral datasets; with the targeted use of behavioral descriptors yielding meaningful performance gains.

8.4CVJun 10, 2025
Gender Fairness of Machine Learning Algorithms for Pain Detection

Dylan Green, Yuting Shang, Jiaee Cheong et al.

Automated pain detection through machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) algorithms holds significant potential in healthcare, particularly for patients unable to self-report pain levels. However, the accuracy and fairness of these algorithms across different demographic groups (e.g., gender) remain under-researched. This paper investigates the gender fairness of ML and DL models trained on the UNBC-McMaster Shoulder Pain Expression Archive Database, evaluating the performance of various models in detecting pain based solely on the visual modality of participants' facial expressions. We compare traditional ML algorithms, Linear Support Vector Machine (L SVM) and Radial Basis Function SVM (RBF SVM), with DL methods, Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) and Vision Transformer (ViT), using a range of performance and fairness metrics. While ViT achieved the highest accuracy and a selection of fairness metrics, all models exhibited gender-based biases. These findings highlight the persistent trade-off between accuracy and fairness, emphasising the need for fairness-aware techniques to mitigate biases in automated healthcare systems.

4.1LGOct 22, 2025
FairGRPO: Fair Reinforcement Learning for Equitable Clinical Reasoning

Shiqi Dai, Wei Dai, Jiaee Cheong et al.

Medical artificial intelligence systems have achieved remarkable diagnostic capabilities, yet they consistently exhibit performance disparities across demographic groups, causing real-world harm to underrepresented populations. While recent multimodal reasoning foundation models have advanced clinical diagnosis through integrated analysis of diverse medical data, reasoning trainings via reinforcement learning inherit and often amplify biases present in training datasets dominated by majority populations. We introduce Fairness-aware Group Relative Policy Optimization (FairGRPO), a hierarchical reinforcement learning approach that promotes equitable learning across heterogeneous clinical populations. FairGRPO employs adaptive importance weighting of advantages based on representation, task difficulty, and data source. To address the common issue of missing demographic labels in the clinical domain, we further employ unsupervised clustering, which automatically discovers latent demographic groups when labels are unavailable. Through comprehensive experiments across 7 clinical diagnostic datasets spanning 5 clinical modalities across X-ray, CT scan, dermoscropy, mammography and ultrasound, we demonstrate that FairGRPO reduces predictive parity by 27.2% against all vanilla and bias mitigated RL baselines, while improving F1 score by 12.49%. Furthermore, training dynamics analysis reveals that FairGRPO progressively improves fairness throughout optimization, while baseline RL methods exhibit deteriorating fairness as training progresses. Based on FairGRPO, we release FairMedGemma-4B, a fairness-aware clinical VLLM that achieves state-of-the-art performance while demonstrating significantly reduced disparities across demographic groups.

3.6CVJun 5, 2025
FG 2025 TrustFAA: the First Workshop on Towards Trustworthy Facial Affect Analysis: Advancing Insights of Fairness, Explainability, and Safety (TrustFAA)

Jiaee Cheong, Yang Liu, Harold Soh et al.

With the increasing prevalence and deployment of Emotion AI-powered facial affect analysis (FAA) tools, concerns about the trustworthiness of these systems have become more prominent. This first workshop on "Towards Trustworthy Facial Affect Analysis: Advancing Insights of Fairness, Explainability, and Safety (TrustFAA)" aims to bring together researchers who are investigating different challenges in relation to trustworthiness-such as interpretability, uncertainty, biases, and privacy-across various facial affect analysis tasks, including macro/ micro-expression recognition, facial action unit detection, other corresponding applications such as pain and depression detection, as well as human-robot interaction and collaboration. In alignment with FG2025's emphasis on ethics, as demonstrated by the inclusion of an Ethical Impact Statement requirement for this year's submissions, this workshop supports FG2025's efforts by encouraging research, discussion and dialogue on trustworthy FAA.

5.5CLJun 12, 2024
Underneath the Numbers: Quantitative and Qualitative Gender Fairness in LLMs for Depression Prediction

Micol Spitale, Jiaee Cheong, Hatice Gunes

Recent studies show bias in many machine learning models for depression detection, but bias in LLMs for this task remains unexplored. This work presents the first attempt to investigate the degree of gender bias present in existing LLMs (ChatGPT, LLaMA 2, and Bard) using both quantitative and qualitative approaches. From our quantitative evaluation, we found that ChatGPT performs the best across various performance metrics and LLaMA 2 outperforms other LLMs in terms of group fairness metrics. As qualitative fairness evaluation remains an open research question we propose several strategies (e.g., word count, thematic analysis) to investigate whether and how a qualitative evaluation can provide valuable insights for bias analysis beyond what is possible with quantitative evaluation. We found that ChatGPT consistently provides a more comprehensive, well-reasoned explanation for its prediction compared to LLaMA 2. We have also identified several themes adopted by LLMs to qualitatively evaluate gender fairness. We hope our results can be used as a stepping stone towards future attempts at improving qualitative evaluation of fairness for LLMs especially for high-stakes tasks such as depression detection.