Bias Amplification to Facilitate the Systematic Evaluation of Bias Mitigation Methods

The future of artificial intelligence (AI) safety is expected to include bias mitigation methods from development to application. The complexity and integration of these methods could grow in conjunction with advances in AI and human-AI interactions. Numerous methods are being proposed to mitigate bias, but without a structured way to compare their strengths and weaknesses. In this work, we present two approaches to systematically amplify subgroup performance bias. These approaches allow for the evaluation and comparison of the effectiveness of bias mitigation methods on AI models by varying the degrees of bias, and can be applied to any classification model. We used these approaches to compare four off-the-shelf bias mitigation methods. Both amplification approaches promote the development of learning shortcuts in which the model forms associations between patient attributes and AI output. We demonstrate these approaches in a case study, evaluating bias in the determination of COVID status from chest x-rays. The maximum achieved increase in performance bias, measured as a difference in predicted prevalence, was 72% and 32% for bias between subgroups related to patient sex and race, respectively. These changes in predicted prevalence were not accompanied by substantial changes in the differences in subgroup area under the receiver operating characteristic curves, indicating that the increased bias is due to the formation of learning shortcuts, not a difference in ability to distinguish positive and negative patients between subgroups.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics
Published
2024-11-05
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1109/jbhi.2024.3491946
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.71
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Bias Amplification to Facilitate the Systematic Evaluation of Bias Mitigation Methods

H. Kenny, Nicholas Petrick, Ravi K. Samala, Alexis Burgon et al.
1 citations
IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics
Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
0.71
article

Bias Amplification to Facilitate the Systematic Evaluation of Bias Mitigation Methods

H. Kenny, Nicholas Petrick, Ravi K. Samala, Alexis Burgon, Berkman Sahiner, Yuhang Zhang
article en
1 citations

Abstract

The future of artificial intelligence (AI) safety is expected to include bias mitigation methods from development to application. The complexity and integration of these methods could grow in conjunction with advances in AI and human-AI interactions. Numerous methods are being proposed to mitigate bias, but without a structured way to compare their strengths and weaknesses. In this work, we present two approaches to systematically amplify subgroup performance bias. These approaches allow for the evaluation and comparison of the effectiveness of bias mitigation methods on AI models by varying the degrees of bias, and can be applied to any classification model. We used these approaches to compare four off-the-shelf bias mitigation methods. Both amplification approaches promote the development of learning shortcuts in which the model forms associations between patient attributes and AI output. We demonstrate these approaches in a case study, evaluating bias in the determination of COVID status from chest x-rays. The maximum achieved increase in performance bias, measured as a difference in predicted prevalence, was 72% and 32% for bias between subgroups related to patient sex and race, respectively. These changes in predicted prevalence were not accompanied by substantial changes in the differences in subgroup area under the receiver operating characteristic curves, indicating that the increased bias is due to the formation of learning shortcuts, not a difference in ability to distinguish positive and negative patients between subgroups.

IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health InformaticsVol. 29(2)
United States Food and Drug Administration (US), Center for Devices and Radiological Health (US), Office of Science (US)
Climate action
Openalex Percentile: Top 25%
Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
0.71
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.