arXiv Science⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Amalia Ionescu

Publications and source records attributed to Amalia Ionescu.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Reweighting is not Harmless: Understanding the Role of Dataset Characteristics

Reweighting is a widely used pre-processing method for promoting discrimination-free model behavior by assigning different weights to data points during model training. While it is often credited with improving fairness, particularly by mitigating systematic underestimation for underrepresented groups, it can also introduce unintended harms under certain data conditions. Using controlled simulations that vary group size and baseline event prevalence, we show how reweighting can yield misleading improvements in fairness by reducing underestimation for one group while introducing it for another. Across 3,000 simulated datasets with event prevalence of 7-14%, reweighting improved parity in positive classification and false negative rates (FNR) between groups, but did so partly by decreasing positive classifications and increasing FNR for the group with higher baseline prevalence. These effects were most pronounced when that group was a minority: its FNR rose by 6 percentage points, approximately 82 additional missed cases per 10,000 group members, and roughly three-quarters of the improvement in FNR parity came from this increase rather than from gains for the other group. The pattern held across six classifiers, from logistic regression to neural networks, while overall accuracy was essentially unchanged, leaving the shift invisible in aggregate performance metrics. These findings mirror patterns reported in real-world applications and underscore the critical role of data characteristics in shaping the impact of this fairness intervention. While reweighting may create desirable outcomes in some applications, practitioners should critically evaluate it relative to their problem area and goals. Specifically, when the goal is to reduce underestimation in one group without introducing underestimation in another, reweighting may not be the appropriate approach.

cs.LG↗

Ablation Study of a Fairness Auditing Agentic System for Bias Mitigation in Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer Detection

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly used in clinical settings, yet limited oversight and domain expertise can allow algorithmic bias and safety risks to persist. This study evaluates whether an agentic AI system can support auditing biomedical machine learning models for fairness in early-onset colorectal cancer (EO-CRC), a condition with documented demographic disparities. We implemented a two-agent architecture consisting of a Domain Expert Agent that synthesizes literature on EO-CRC disparities and a Fairness Consultant Agent that recommends sensitive attributes and fairness metrics for model evaluation. An ablation study compared three Ollama large language models (8B, 20B, and 120B parameters) across three configurations: pretrained LLM-only, Agent without Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), and Agent with RAG. Across models, the Agent with RAG achieved the highest semantic similarity to expert-derived reference statements, particularly for disparity identification, suggesting agentic systems with retrieval may help scale fairness auditing in clinical AI.

cs.MA↗