Joymallya Chakraborty

Suvodeep Majumder, Joymallya Chakraborty, Tim Menzies

Labeling a module defective or non-defective is an expensive task. Hence, there are often limits on how much-labeled data is available for training. Semi-supervised classifiers use far fewer labels for training models. However, there are numerous semi-supervised methods, including self-labeling, co-training, maximal-margin, and graph-based methods, to name a few. Only a handful of these methods have been tested in SE for (e.g.) predicting defects and even there, those methods have been tested on just a handful of projects. This paper applies a wide range of 55 semi-supervised learners to over 714 projects. We find that semi-supervised "co-training methods" work significantly better than other approaches. Specifically, after labeling, just 2.5% of data, then make predictions that are competitive to those using 100% of the data. That said, co-training needs to be used cautiously since the specific choice of co-training methods needs to be carefully selected based on a user's specific goals. Also, we warn that a commonly-used co-training method ("multi-view"-- where different learners get different sets of columns) does not improve predictions (while adding too much to the run time costs 11 hours vs. 1.8 hours). It is an open question, worthy of future work, to test if these reductions can be seen in other areas of software analytics. To assist with exploring other areas, all the codes used are available at https://github.com/ai-se/Semi-Supervised.

Zhe Yu, Joymallya Chakraborty, Tim Menzies

This research seeks to benefit the software engineering society by providing a simple yet effective pre-processing approach to achieve equalized odds fairness in machine learning software. Fairness issues have attracted increasing attention since machine learning software is increasingly used for high-stakes and high-risk decisions. Amongst all the existing fairness notions, this work specifically targets "equalized odds" given its advantage in always allowing perfect classifiers. Equalized odds requires that members of every demographic group do not receive disparate mistreatment. Prior works either optimize for an equalized odds related metric during the learning process like a black-box, or manipulate the training data following some intuition. This work studies the root cause of the violation of equalized odds and how to tackle it. We found that equalizing the class distribution in each demographic group with sample weights is a necessary condition for achieving equalized odds without modifying the normal training process. In addition, an important partial condition for equalized odds (zero average odds difference) can be guaranteed when the class distributions are weighted to be not only equal but also balanced (1:1). Based on these analyses, we proposed FairBalance, a pre-processing algorithm which balances the class distribution in each demographic group by assigning calculated weights to the training data. On eight real-world datasets, our empirical results show that, at low computational overhead, the proposed pre-processing algorithm FairBalance can significantly improve equalized odds without much, if any damage to the utility. FairBalance also outperforms existing state-of-the-art approaches in terms of equalized odds. To facilitate reuse, reproduction, and validation, we made our scripts available at https://github.com/hil-se/FairBalance.

Suvodeep Majumder, Joymallya Chakraborty, Amritanshu Agrawal et al.

Prior literature has suggested that in many projects 80\% or more of the contributions are made by a small called group of around 20% of the development team. Most prior studies deprecate a reliance on such a small inner group of "heroes", arguing that it causes bottlenecks in development and communication. Despite this, such projects are very common in open source projects. So what exactly is the impact of "heroes" in code quality? Herbsleb argues that if code is strongly connected yet their developers are not, then that code will be buggy. To test the Hersleb hypothesis, we develop and apply two metrics of (a) "social-ness'"and (b) "hero-ness" that measure (a) how much one developer comments on the issues of another; and (b) how much one developer changes another developer's code (and "heroes" are those that change the most code, all around the system). In a result endorsing the Hersleb hypothesis, in over 1000 open source projects, we find that "social-ness" is a statistically stronger indicate for code quality (number of bugs) than "hero-ness". Hence we say that debates over the merits of "hero-ness" is subtly misguided. Our results suggest that the real benefits of these so-called "heroes" is not so much the code they generate but the pattern of communication required when the interaction between a large community of programmers passes through a small group of centralized developers. To say that another way, to build better code, build better communication flows between core developers and the rest. In order to allow other researchers to confirm/improve/refute our results, all our scripts and data are available, on-line at https://github.com/Anonymous633671/A-Comparison-on-Communication-and-Code-Dependency-Effects-on-Software-Code-Quality.

Joymallya Chakraborty, Suvodeep Majumder, Huy Tu

Ethical bias in machine learning models has become a matter of concern in the software engineering community. Most of the prior software engineering works concentrated on finding ethical bias in models rather than fixing it. After finding bias, the next step is mitigation. Prior researchers mainly tried to use supervised approaches to achieve fairness. However, in the real world, getting data with trustworthy ground truth is challenging and also ground truth can contain human bias. Semi-supervised learning is a machine learning technique where, incrementally, labeled data is used to generate pseudo-labels for the rest of the data (and then all that data is used for model training). In this work, we apply four popular semi-supervised techniques as pseudo-labelers to create fair classification models. Our framework, Fair-SSL, takes a very small amount (10%) of labeled data as input and generates pseudo-labels for the unlabeled data. We then synthetically generate new data points to balance the training data based on class and protected attribute as proposed by Chakraborty et al. in FSE 2021. Finally, the classification model is trained on the balanced pseudo-labeled data and validated on test data. After experimenting on ten datasets and three learners, we find that Fair-SSL achieves similar performance as three state-of-the-art bias mitigation algorithms. That said, the clear advantage of Fair-SSL is that it requires only 10% of the labeled training data. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first SE work where semi-supervised techniques are used to fight against ethical bias in SE ML models.

Suvodeep Majumder, Joymallya Chakraborty, Gina R. Bai et al.

Testing machine learning software for ethical bias has become a pressing current concern. In response, recent research has proposed a plethora of new fairness metrics, for example, the dozens of fairness metrics in the IBM AIF360 toolkit. This raises the question: How can any fairness tool satisfy such a diverse range of goals? While we cannot completely simplify the task of fairness testing, we can certainly reduce the problem. This paper shows that many of those fairness metrics effectively measure the same thing. Based on experiments using seven real-world datasets, we find that (a) 26 classification metrics can be clustered into seven groups, and (b) four dataset metrics can be clustered into three groups. Further, each reduced set may actually predict different things. Hence, it is no longer necessary (or even possible) to satisfy all fairness metrics. In summary, to simplify the fairness testing problem, we recommend the following steps: (1)~determine what type of fairness is desirable (and we offer a handful of such types); then (2) lookup those types in our clusters; then (3) just test for one item per cluster.

Kewen Peng, Joymallya Chakraborty, Tim Menzies

Context: Machine learning software can generate models that inappropriately discriminate against specific protected social groups (e.g., groups based on gender, ethnicity, etc). Motivated by those results, software engineering researchers have proposed many methods for mitigating those discriminatory effects. While those methods are effective in mitigating bias, few of them can provide explanations on what is the root cause of bias. Objective: We aim at better detection and mitigation of algorithmic discrimination in machine learning software problems. Method: Here we propose xFAIR, a model-based extrapolation method, that is capable of both mitigating bias and explaining the cause. In our xFAIR approach, protected attributes are represented by models learned from the other independent variables (and these models offer extrapolations over the space between existing examples). We then use the extrapolation models to relabel protected attributes later seen in testing data or deployment time. Our approach aims to offset the biased predictions of the classification model via rebalancing the distribution of protected attributes. Results: The experiments of this paper show that, without compromising (original) model performance, xFAIR can achieve significantly better group and individual fairness (as measured in different metrics) than benchmark methods. Moreover, when compared to another instance-based rebalancing method, our model-based approach shows faster runtime and thus better scalability. Conclusion: Algorithmic decision bias can be removed via extrapolation that smooths away outlier points. As evidence for this, our proposed xFAIR is not only performance-wise better (measured by fairness and performance metrics) than two state-of-the-art fairness algorithms.

Joymallya Chakraborty, Tianpei Xia, Fahmid M. Fahid et al.

We assert that it is the ethical duty of software engineers to strive to reduce software discrimination. This paper discusses how that might be done. This is an important topic since machine learning software is increasingly being used to make decisions that affect people's lives. Potentially, the application of that software will result in fairer decisions because (unlike humans) machine learning software is not biased. However, recent results show that the software within many data mining packages exhibits "group discrimination"; i.e. their decisions are inappropriately affected by "protected attributes"(e.g., race, gender, age, etc.). There has been much prior work on validating the fairness of machine-learning models (by recognizing when such software discrimination exists). But after detection, comes mitigation. What steps can ethical software engineers take to reduce discrimination in the software they produce? This paper shows that making \textit{fairness} as a goal during hyperparameter optimization can (a) preserve the predictive power of a model learned from a data miner while also (b) generates fairer results. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first application of hyperparameter optimization as a tool for software engineers to generate fairer software.