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

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.

[1]  Martin J. Wainwright,et al.  Low Permutation-Rank Matrices: Structural Properties and Noisy Completion , 2017, 2018 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT).

[2]  Ilya Shpitser,et al.  Fair Inference on Outcomes , 2017, AAAI.

[3]  Jie Tang,et al.  Expertise Matching via Constraint-Based Optimization , 2010, Web Intelligence.

[4]  Robert P Freckleton,et al.  Does double-blind review benefit female authors? , 2008, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[5]  M. Kocher,et al.  Single-blind vs Double-blind Peer Review in the Setting of Author Prestige. , 2016, JAMA.

[6]  Isabelle Guyon,et al.  Design and Analysis of the NIPS 2016 Review Process , 2017, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[7]  E. Phelps The Statistical Theory of Racism and Sexism , 1972 .

[8]  Martin J. Wainwright,et al.  Stochastically Transitive Models for Pairwise Comparisons: Statistical and Computational Issues , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.

[9]  Toniann Pitassi,et al.  Fairness through awareness , 2011, ITCS '12.

[10]  Richard S. Zemel,et al.  The Toronto Paper Matching System: An automated paper-reviewer assignment system , 2013 .

[11]  Omer Lev,et al.  Impartial Peer Review , 2015, IJCAI.

[12]  Cheng Long,et al.  On Good and Fair Paper-Reviewer Assignment , 2013, 2013 IEEE 13th International Conference on Data Mining.

[13]  Nihar B. Shah,et al.  PeerReview4All: Fair and Accurate Reviewer Assignment in Peer Review , 2018, ALT.

[14]  Yiling Chen,et al.  A Short-term Intervention for Long-term Fairness in the Labor Market , 2017, WWW.

[15]  A. James 2010 , 2011, Philo of Alexandria: an Annotated Bibliography 2007-2016.

[16]  Omer Lev,et al.  Strategyproof Peer Selection: Mechanisms, Analyses, and Experiments , 2016, AAAI.

[17]  C. Martin 2015 , 2015, Les 25 ans de l’OMC: Une rétrospective en photos.

[18]  Noga Alon,et al.  Sum of us: strategyproof selection from the selectors , 2009, TARK XIII.

[19]  Hisashi Kashima,et al.  Statistical quality estimation for general crowdsourcing tasks , 2013, HCOMP.

[20]  Peter A. Flach,et al.  Novel tools to streamline the conference review process: experiences from SIGKDD'09 , 2010, SKDD.

[21]  Alexandra Chouldechova,et al.  Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments , 2016, Big Data.

[22]  Martin J. Wainwright,et al.  A Permutation-Based Model for Crowd Labeling: Optimal Estimation and Robustness , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.

[23]  S. Kerr,et al.  Manuscript Characteristics Which Influence Acceptance for Management and Social Science Journals , 1977 .

[24]  Nihar B. Shah,et al.  On Testing for Biases in Peer Review , 2019, NeurIPS.

[25]  Alexandra Chouldechova,et al.  Does mitigating ML's impact disparity require treatment disparity? , 2017, NeurIPS.

[26]  Pramodita Sharma 2012 , 2013, Les 25 ans de l’OMC: Une rétrospective en photos.

[27]  Sudhir R. Paul Bayesian methods for calibration of examiners , 1981 .

[28]  Jon M. Kleinberg,et al.  Selection Problems in the Presence of Implicit Bias , 2018, ITCS.

[29]  Toniann Pitassi,et al.  Learning Fair Representations , 2013, ICML.

[30]  Matt J. Kusner,et al.  Counterfactual Fairness , 2017, NIPS.

[31]  Jörg Rothe,et al.  How to Calibrate the Scores of Biased Reviewers by Quadratic Programming , 2011, AAAI.

[32]  Nihar B. Shah,et al.  A SUPER* Algorithm to Optimize Paper Bidding in Peer Review , 2020, UAI.

[33]  Min Zhang,et al.  Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[34]  H. Moulin,et al.  Impartial Nominations for a Prize , 2013 .

[35]  Dirk Helbing,et al.  Peer review and competition in the Art Exhibition Game , 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[36]  Nathan Srebro,et al.  Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learning , 2016, NIPS.

[37]  Bernhard Schölkopf,et al.  Avoiding Discrimination through Causal Reasoning , 2017, NIPS.

[38]  R S MacKay,et al.  Calibration with confidence: a principled method for panel assessment , 2015, Royal Society Open Science.

[39]  Kurt Mehlhorn,et al.  Assigning Papers to Referees , 2009, Algorithmica.

[40]  Andrew McCallum,et al.  Paper Matching with Local Fairness Constraints , 2019, KDD.

[41]  T. Tregenza,et al.  Double-blind review favours increased representation of female authors. , 2008, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[42]  D. Aigner,et al.  Statistical Theories of Discrimination in Labor Markets , 1977 .

[43]  K. Arrow The Theory of Discrimination , 1971 .

[44]  Nihar B. Shah,et al.  Your 2 is My 1, Your 3 is My 9: Handling Arbitrary Miscalibrations in Ratings , 2018, AAMAS.

[45]  Craig Boutilier,et al.  A Framework for Optimizing Paper Matching , 2011, UAI.

[46]  Nihar B. Shah,et al.  Choosing How to Choose Papers , 2018, ArXiv.

[47]  Foster J. Provost,et al.  The myth of the double-blind review?: author identification using only citations , 2003, SKDD.

[48]  Felix A. Fischer,et al.  Optimal impartial selection , 2013, SIAM J. Comput..

[49]  Florence March,et al.  2016 , 2016, Affair of the Heart.

[50]  Judy Goldsmith,et al.  The AI conference paper assignment problem , 2007, AAAI 2007.

[51]  Geoffroy de Clippel,et al.  Impartial division of a dollar , 2008, J. Econ. Theory.

[52]  Yishay Mansour,et al.  Efficient candidate screening under multiple tests and implications for fairness , 2019, FORC.

[53]  Carole J. Lee Commensuration Bias in Peer Review , 2015, Philosophy of Science.

[54]  Ariel D. Procaccia,et al.  Ranking Wily People Who Rank Each Other , 2018, AAAI.