Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3318464.3383129acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmodConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper
Open access

SIGMOD 2020 Tutorial on Fairness and Bias in Peer Review and Other Sociotechnical Intelligent Systems

Published: 31 May 2020 Publication History

Abstract

Questions of fairness and bias abound in all socially-consequential decisions pertaining to collection and management of data. Whether designing protocols for peer review of research papers, setting hiring policies, or framing research question in genetics, any data-management decision with the potential to allocate benefits or confer harms raises concerns about who gains or loses that may fail to surface in naively-chosen performance measures. Data science interacts with these questions in two fundamentally different ways: (i) as the technology driving the very systems responsible for certain social impacts, posing new questions about what it means for such systems to accord with ethical norms and the law; and (ii) as a set of powerful tools for analyzing existing data management systems, e.g., for auditing existing systems for various biases. This tutorial will tackle both angles on the interaction between technology and society vis-a-vis concerns over fairness and bias, particularly focusing on the collection and management of data. Our presentation will cover a wide range of disciplinary perspectives with the first part focusing on the social impacts of technology and the formulations of fairness and bias defined via protected characteristics and the second part taking a deep into peer review and distributed human evaluations, to explore other forms of bias, such as that due to subjectivity, miscalibration, and dishonest behavior.

References

[1]
Dennis J Aigner and Glen G Cain. 1977. Statistical theories of discrimination in labor markets. ILR Review, Vol. 30, 2 (1977), 175--187.
[2]
Noga Alon, Felix Fischer, Ariel Procaccia, and Moshe Tennenholtz. 2011. Sum of us: Strategyproof selection from the selectors. In Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge. ACM, 101--110.
[3]
Kenneth Arrow et al. 1973. The theory of discrimination. Discrimination in labor markets, Vol. 3, 10 (1973), 3--33.
[4]
H Aziz, O Lev, N Mattei, J Rosenschein, and T Walsh. 2016. Strategyproof Peer Selection: Mechanisms, Analyses, and Experiments. In AAAI. 397--403.
[5]
Yukino Baba and Hisashi Kashima. 2013. Statistical Quality Estimation for General Crowdsourcing Tasks. In KDD.
[6]
S Balietti, R Goldstone, and D Helbing. 2016. Peer review and competition in the Art Exhibition Game. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2016).
[7]
G Becker. 1957. The economics of discrimination Chicago. U. Chicago (1957).
[8]
A Budden, T Tregenza, L Aarssen, J Koricheva, R Leimu, and C Lortie. 2008. Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. Trends in Ecology and Evolution (2008).
[9]
L. Charlin and R. S. Zemel. 2013. The Toronto Paper Matching System: An automated paper-reviewer assignment system. In ICML Workshop on Peer Reviewing and Publishing Models.
[10]
L. Charlin, R. S. Zemel, and C. Boutilier. 2012. A Framework for Optimizing Paper Matching. CoRR, Vol. abs/1202.3706 (2012). http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.3706
[11]
A Chouldechova. 2017. Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments. Big data (2017).
[12]
L Cohen, Z Lipton, and Y Mansour. 2019. Efficient candidate screening under multiple tests and implications for fairness. arXiv:1905.11361 (2019).
[13]
Geoffroy De Clippel, Herve Moulin, and Nicolaus Tideman. 2008. Impartial division of a dollar. Journal of Economic Theory, Vol. 139, 1 (2008), 176--191.
[14]
C Dwork, M Hardt, T Pitassi, O Reingold, and R Zemel. 2012. Fairness through awareness. In Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference.
[15]
T Fiez, N Shah, and L Ratliff. 2019. A SUPER* Algorithm to Optimize Paper Bidding in Peer Review. In ICML workshop on Real-world Sequential Decision Making: Reinforcement Learning And Beyond.
[16]
F Fischer and M Klimm. 2015. Optimal impartial selection. SIAM J. Comput. (2015).
[17]
P Flach, S Spiegler, B Golénia, S Price, J Guiver, R Herbrich, T Graepel, and M Zaki. 2010. Novel Tools to Streamline the Conference Review Process: Experiences from SIGKDD'09. SIGKDD Explor. Newsl. (2010).
[18]
N. Garg, T. Kavitha, A. Kumar, K. Mehlhorn, and J. Mestre. 2010. Assigning Papers to Referees. Algorithmica, Vol. 58, 1 (01 Sep 2010), 119--136.
[19]
H Ge, M Welling, and Z Ghahramani. 2013. A Bayesian model for calibrating conference review scores. http://mlg.eng.cam.ac.uk/hong/nipsrevcal.pdf
[20]
Judy Goldsmith and Robert H. Sloan. 2007. The AI conference paper assignment problem., Vol. WS-07--10 (12 2007), 53--57.
[21]
M Hardt, E Price, and N Srebro. 2016. Equality of opportunity in supervised learning. In NeurIPS.
[22]
S Hill and F Provost. 2003. The myth of the double-blind review? Author identification using only citations. SIGKDD Explorations (2003).
[23]
R Holzman and H Moulin. 2013. Impartial nominations for a prize. Econometrica (2013).
[24]
L Hu and Y Chen. 2018. A short-term intervention for long-term fairness in the labor market. In WWW.
[25]
A Kahng, Y Kotturi, C Kulkarni, D Kurokawa, and A Procaccia. 2017. Ranking Wily People Who Rank Each Other. Technical Report (2017).
[26]
S Kerr, J Tolliver, and D Petree. 1977. Manuscript characteristics which influence acceptance for management and social science journals. Acad. Mgmt. Jrnl. (1977).
[27]
N Kilbertus, M Carulla, G Parascandolo, M Hardt, D Janzing, and B Schölkopf. 2017. Avoiding discrimination through causal reasoning. In NeurIPS.
[28]
Jon Kleinberg and Manish Raghavan. 2018. Selection Problems in the Presence of Implicit Bias. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.03533 (2018).
[29]
A Kobren, B Saha, and A McCallum. 2019. Paper Matching with Local Fairness Constraints. In KDD.
[30]
D Kurokawa, O Lev, J Morgenstern, and A Procaccia. 2015. Impartial Peer Review. In IJCAI.
[31]
M Kusner, J Loftus, C Russell, and R Silva. 2017. Counterfactual fairness. In NeurIPS. 4066--4076.
[32]
C Lee. 2015. Commensuration bias in peer review. Philosophy of Science (2015).
[33]
Z Lipton, J McAuley, and A Chouldechova. 2018. Does mitigating ML's impact disparity require treatment disparity?. In NeurIPS.
[34]
Cheng Long, R Wong, Y Peng, and L Ye. 2013. On Good and Fair Paper-Reviewer Assignment.
[35]
R. MacKay, R. Kenna, R. Low, and S. Parker. 2017. Calibration with confidence: a principled method for panel assessment. Royal Society Open Science (2017).
[36]
R Nabi and I Shpitser. 2018. Fair inference on outcomes. In AAAI.
[37]
Ritesh Noothigattu, Nihar Shah, and Ariel Procaccia. 2018. Choosing how to choose papers. arXiv preprint arxiv:1808.09057 (2018).
[38]
K Okike, K Hug, M Kocher, and S Leopold. 2016. Single-blind vs Double-blind Peer Review in the Setting of Author Prestige. JAMA (2016).
[39]
S. R. Paul. 1981. Bayesian methods for calibration of examiners. Brit. J. Math. Statist. Psych., Vol. 34, 2 (1981), 213--223.
[40]
Edmund S Phelps. 1972. The statistical theory of racism and sexism. The American economic review (1972), 659--661.
[41]
M Roos, J Rothe, and B Scheuermann. 2011. How to Calibrate the Scores of Biased Reviewers by Quadratic Programming. In AAAI.
[42]
N Shah, S Balakrishnan, A Guntuboyina, and M Wainwright. 2017a. Stochastically transitive models for pairwise comparisons: Statistical and computational issues. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory (2017).
[43]
N Shah, S Balakrishnan, and M Wainwright. 2019. Low Permutation-rank Matrices: Structural Properties and Noisy Completion. In JMLR.
[44]
N Shah, B Tabibian, K Muandet, I Guyon, and U Von Luxburg. 2017b. Design and Analysis of the NIPS 2016 Review Process. JMLR (2017).
[45]
Nihar B. Shah, Sivaraman Balakrishnan, and Martin J. Wainwright. 2016. A permutation-based model for crowd labeling: Optimal estimation and robustness. arXiv:1606.09632 (2016).
[46]
I Stelmakh, N Shah, and A Singh. 2019 a. On Testing for Biases in Peer Review. In NeurIPS.
[47]
I Stelmakh, N Shah, and A Singh. 2019 b. PeerReview4All: Fair and Accurate Reviewer Assignment in Peer Review. In ALT.
[48]
W Tang, J Tang, and C Tan. 2010. Expertise Matching via Constraint-Based Optimization. In Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology.
[49]
A Tomkins, M Zhang, and W Heavlin. 2017. Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2017).
[50]
J Wang and N Shah. 2018. There's Lots in a Name (Whereas There Shouldn't Be). https://researchonresearch.blog/2018/11/28/theres-lots-in-a-name/.
[51]
J Wang and N Shah. 2019 a. Gender Distributions of Paper Awards. https://researchonresearch.blog/2019/06/18/gender-distributions-of-paper-awards/.
[52]
Jingyan Wang and Nihar B Shah. 2019 b. Your 2 is My 1, Your 3 is My 9: Handling Arbitrary Miscalibrations in Ratings. In AAMAS.
[53]
T Webb, B O'Hara, and R Freckleton. 2008. Does double-blind review benefit female authors? Trends in Ecology and Evolution (2008).
[54]
Y Xu, H Zhao, X Shi, and N Shah. 2018. On Strategyproof Conference Review. In IJCAI.
[55]
Rich Zemel, Yu Wu, Kevin Swersky, Toni Pitassi, and Cynthia Dwork. 2013. Learning fair representations. In ICML.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Cognitive Psychology Meets Data Management: State of the Art and Future DirectionsCompanion of the 2024 International Conference on Management of Data10.1145/3626246.3654682(590-596)Online publication date: 9-Jun-2024
  • (2024)Social Psychology Meets Social Computing: State of the Art and Future DirectionsCompanion Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 202410.1145/3589335.3641242(1250-1253)Online publication date: 13-May-2024
  • (2024)Data distribution tailoring revisited: cost-efficient integration of representative dataThe VLDB Journal10.1007/s00778-024-00849-w33:5(1283-1306)Online publication date: 12-Apr-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. SIGMOD 2020 Tutorial on Fairness and Bias in Peer Review and Other Sociotechnical Intelligent Systems

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Information & Contributors

          Information

          Published In

          cover image ACM Conferences
          SIGMOD '20: Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data
          June 2020
          2925 pages
          ISBN:9781450367356
          DOI:10.1145/3318464
          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Sponsors

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          Published: 31 May 2020

          Permissions

          Request permissions for this article.

          Check for updates

          Author Tags

          1. bias
          2. fairness
          3. humans and AI
          4. peer review
          5. sociotechnical systems

          Qualifiers

          • Short-paper

          Conference

          SIGMOD/PODS '20
          Sponsor:

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate 785 of 4,003 submissions, 20%

          Contributors

          Other Metrics

          Bibliometrics & Citations

          Bibliometrics

          Article Metrics

          • Downloads (Last 12 months)260
          • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)14
          Reflects downloads up to 03 Oct 2024

          Other Metrics

          Citations

          Cited By

          View all
          • (2024)Cognitive Psychology Meets Data Management: State of the Art and Future DirectionsCompanion of the 2024 International Conference on Management of Data10.1145/3626246.3654682(590-596)Online publication date: 9-Jun-2024
          • (2024)Social Psychology Meets Social Computing: State of the Art and Future DirectionsCompanion Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 202410.1145/3589335.3641242(1250-1253)Online publication date: 13-May-2024
          • (2024)Data distribution tailoring revisited: cost-efficient integration of representative dataThe VLDB Journal10.1007/s00778-024-00849-w33:5(1283-1306)Online publication date: 12-Apr-2024
          • (2022)Fairness-Aware Range Queries for Selecting Unbiased Data2022 IEEE 38th International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE)10.1109/ICDE53745.2022.00111(1423-1436)Online publication date: May-2022
          • (2021)Tailoring data source distributions for fairness-aware data integrationProceedings of the VLDB Endowment10.14778/3476249.347629914:11(2519-2532)Online publication date: 27-Oct-2021
          • (2021)FairRoverProceedings of the Fifth Workshop on Data Management for End-To-End Machine Learning10.1145/3462462.3468882(1-10)Online publication date: 20-Jun-2021
          • (2020)Building community together: towards equitable CSCL practices and processesInternational Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning10.1007/s11412-020-09329-z15:3(249-255)Online publication date: 8-Sep-2020

          View Options

          View options

          PDF

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader

          Get Access

          Login options

          Media

          Figures

          Other

          Tables

          Share

          Share

          Share this Publication link

          Share on social media