Bruno Scarone

Bruno Scarone, Alfredo Viola, Renée J. Miller

Machine learning models have been shown to exhibit discriminatory outcomes or degraded performance for individuals at the intersection of multiple sensitive attributes, such as race and gender. This stems in part from two interrelated challenges: the lack of principled measures for quantifying bias (potentially intersectional), and insufficient representation of intersectional subgroups in training data. We extend a recent bias mitigation framework to incorporate coverage constraints that enforce sufficient representation across groups, including intersectional subgroups. Since achieving exactly zero bias for all groups may not be data efficient (meaning it may require large amounts of data), our solution trades small approximation errors in bias for greater data efficiency while satisfying coverage constraints. We also formulate bias mitigation as an integer linear program that optimizes over all mitigation strategies, and characterize the price of fairness, the minimum data modification cost, as a function of fairness tolerance. This is essential both for legal compliance, where regulations may mandate specific fairness thresholds, and for data governance, enabling practitioners to make informed trade-offs between bias reduction and data modification (particularly, data purchasing) costs. We evaluate our techniques on publicly available datasets, demonstrating that bias mitigation via our framework preserves predictive accuracy across multiple classifiers, and that coverage constraints, while motivated by statistical considerations, are essential for preserving downstream ML performance.

Bruno Scarone, Ricardo Baeza-Yates

Reject inference methods are widely used to mitigate survival bias in credit scoring, yet their effectiveness remains poorly understood. We systematically evaluate several such methods and uncover a structural failure mode: in a natural retraining cycle, models whose accuracy improves while recall collapses create an illusion of improvement that leads practitioners to believe the system is getting better when, in fact, its rejection quality -- the ability to correctly screen out defaulters -- is deteriorating. We then propose a controlled exploration strategy that breaks the feedback loop without statistical assumptions: the lender deliberately approves a fraction of rejected applicants and observes their true outcomes. We show that accuracy and rejection quality give opposite recommendations on whether to explore: accuracy favors no exploration, while rejection quality improves with it, confirming that standard evaluation metrics are misleading under selection bias. Even minimal exploration rates (2--5\%) prove sufficient in our experiments to diagnose the severity of the feedback loop at near-zero cost. Our findings are consistent across two machine learning methods and three real-world datasets, and suggest that standard evaluation protocols are inadequate for assessing models trained under survival bias.

Bruno Scarone, Ricardo Baeza-Yates

We study the societal impact of pseudo-scientific assumptions for predicting the behavior of people in a straightforward application of machine learning to risk prediction in financial lending. This use case also exemplifies the impact of survival bias in loan return prediction. We analyze the models in terms of their accuracy and social cost, showing that the socially optimal model may not imply a significant accuracy loss for this downstream task. Our results are verified for commonly used learning methods and datasets. Our findings also show that there is a natural dynamic when training models that suffer survival bias where accuracy slightly deteriorates, and whose recall and precision improves with time. These results act as an illusion, leading the observer to believe that the system is getting better, when in fact the model is suffering from increasingly more unfairness and survival bias.

Bruno Scarone, Alfredo Viola, Renée J. Miller et al.

The widespread use of machine learning and data-driven algorithms for decision making has been steadily increasing over many years. \emph{Bias} in the data can adversely affect this decision-making. We present a new mitigation strategy to address data bias. Our methods are explainable and come with mathematical guarantees of correctness. They can take advantage of new work on table discovery to find new tuples that can be added to a dataset to create real datasets that are unbiased or less biased. Our framework covers data with non-binary labels and with multiple sensitive attributes. Hence, we are able to measure and mitigate bias that does not appear over a single attribute (or feature), but only intersectionally, when considering a combination of attributes. We evaluate our techniques on publicly available datasets and provide a theoretical analysis of our results, highlighting novel insights into data bias.