Data Bias Management

Due to the widespread use of data-powered systems in our everyday lives, concepts like bias and fairness gained significant attention among researchers and practitioners, in both industry and academia. Such issues typically emerge from the data, which comes with varying levels of quality, used to train supervised machine learning systems. With the commercialization and deployment of such systems that are sometimes delegated to make life-changing decisions, significant efforts are being made towards the identification and removal of possible sources of data bias that may resurface to the final end user or in the decisions being made. In this paper, we present research results that show how bias in data affects end users, where bias is originated, and provide a viewpoint about what we should do about it. We argue that data bias is not something that should necessarily be removed in all cases, and that research attention should instead shift from bias removal towards the identification, measurement, indexing, surfacing, and adapting for bias, which we name bias management.

Managing Bias in Human-Annotated Data: Moving Beyond Bias Removal

Due to the widespread use of data-powered systems in our everyday lives, the notions of bias and fairness gained significant attention among researchers and practitioners, in both industry and academia. Such issues typically emerge from the data, which comes with varying levels of quality, used to train systems. With the commercialization and employment of such systems that are sometimes delegated to make life-changing decisions, a significant effort is being made towards the identification and removal of possible sources of bias that may surface to the final end-user. In this position paper, we instead argue that bias is not something that should necessarily be removed in all cases, and the attention and effort should shift from bias removal to the identification, measurement, indexing, surfacing, and adjustment of bias, which we name bias management. We argue that if correctly managed, bias can be a resource that can be made transparent to the the users and empower them to make informed choices about their experience with the system.

The Many Dimensions of Truthfulness: Crowdsourcing Misinformation Assessments on a Multidimensional Scale

Recent work has demonstrated the viability of using crowdsourcing as a tool for evaluating the truthfulness of public statements. Under certain conditions such as: (1) having a balanced set of workers with different backgrounds and cognitive abilities; (2) using an adequate set of mechanisms to control the quality of the collected data; and (3) using a coarse grained assessment scale, the crowd can provide reliable identification of fake news. However, fake news are a subtle matter: statements can be just biased ("cherrypicked"), imprecise, wrong, etc. and the unidimensional truth scale used in existing work cannot account for such differences. In this paper we propose a multidimensional notion of truthfulness and we ask the crowd workers to assess seven different dimensions of truthfulness selected based on existing literature: Correctness, Neutrality, Comprehensibility, Precision, Completeness, Speaker's Trustworthiness, and Informativeness. We deploy a set of quality control mechanisms to ensure that the thousands of assessments collected on 180 publicly available fact-checked statements distributed over two datasets are of adequate quality, including a custom search engine used by the crowd workers to find web pages supporting their truthfulness assessments. A comprehensive analysis of crowdsourced judgments shows that: (1) the crowdsourced assessments are reliable when compared to an expert-provided gold standard; (2) the proposed dimensions of truthfulness capture independent pieces of information; (3) the crowdsourcing task can be easily learned by the workers; and (4) the resulting assessments provide a useful basis for a more complete estimation of statement truthfulness.

Can the Crowd Judge Truthfulness? A Longitudinal Study on Recent Misinformation about COVID-19

Recently, the misinformation problem has been addressed with a crowdsourcing-based approach: to assess the truthfulness of a statement, instead of relying on a few experts, a crowd of non-expert is exploited. We study whether crowdsourcing is an effective and reliable method to assess truthfulness during a pandemic, targeting statements related to COVID-19, thus addressing (mis)information that is both related to a sensitive and personal issue and very recent as compared to when the judgment is done. In our experiments, crowd workers are asked to assess the truthfulness of statements, and to provide evidence for the assessments. Besides showing that the crowd is able to accurately judge the truthfulness of the statements, we report results on workers behavior, agreement among workers, effect of aggregation functions, of scales transformations, and of workers background and bias. We perform a longitudinal study by re-launching the task multiple times with both novice and experienced workers, deriving important insights on how the behavior and quality change over time. Our results show that: workers are able to detect and objectively categorize online (mis)information related to COVID-19; both crowdsourced and expert judgments can be transformed and aggregated to improve quality; worker background and other signals (e.g., source of information, behavior) impact the quality of the data. The longitudinal study demonstrates that the time-span has a major effect on the quality of the judgments, for both novice and experienced workers. Finally, we provide an extensive failure analysis of the statements misjudged by the crowd-workers.

The COVID-19 Infodemic: Can the Crowd Judge Recent Misinformation Objectively?

Misinformation is an ever increasing problem that is difficult to solve for the research community and has a negative impact on the society at large. Very recently, the problem has been addressed with a crowdsourcing-based approach to scale up labeling efforts: to assess the truthfulness of a statement, instead of relying on a few experts, a crowd of (non-expert) judges is exploited. We follow the same approach to study whether crowdsourcing is an effective and reliable method to assess statements truthfulness during a pandemic. We specifically target statements related to the COVID-19 health emergency, that is still ongoing at the time of the study and has arguably caused an increase of the amount of misinformation that is spreading online (a phenomenon for which the term "infodemic" has been used). By doing so, we are able to address (mis)information that is both related to a sensitive and personal issue like health and very recent as compared to when the judgment is done: two issues that have not been analyzed in related work. In our experiment, crowd workers are asked to assess the truthfulness of statements, as well as to provide evidence for the assessments as a URL and a text justification. Besides showing that the crowd is able to accurately judge the truthfulness of the statements, we also report results on many different aspects, including: agreement among workers, the effect of different aggregation functions, of scales transformations, and of workers background / bias. We also analyze workers behavior, in terms of queries submitted, URLs found / selected, text justifications, and other behavioral data like clicks and mouse actions collected by means of an ad hoc logger.

An Effectiveness Metric for Ordinal Classification: Formal Properties and Experimental Results

In Ordinal Classification tasks, items have to be assigned to classes that have a relative ordering, such as positive, neutral, negative in sentiment analysis. Remarkably, the most popular evaluation metrics for ordinal classification tasks either ignore relevant information (for instance, precision/recall on each of the classes ignores their relative ordering) or assume additional information (for instance, Mean Average Error assumes absolute distances between classes). In this paper we propose a new metric for Ordinal Classification, Closeness Evaluation Measure, that is rooted on Measurement Theory and Information Theory. Our theoretical analysis and experimental results over both synthetic data and data from NLP shared tasks indicate that the proposed metric captures quality aspects from different traditional tasks simultaneously. In addition, it generalizes some popular classification (nominal scale) and error minimization (interval scale) metrics, depending on the measurement scale in which it is instantiated.