=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3808/paper12
|storemode=property
|title=Data Quality Dimensions for Fair AI
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3808/paper12.pdf
|volume=Vol-3808
|authors=Camilla Quaresmini,Giuseppe Primiero
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/aequitas/QuaresminiP24
}}
==Data Quality Dimensions for Fair AI==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3808/paper12.pdf
Data Quality Dimensions for Fair AI⋆
Camilla Quaresmini1,∗,† , Giuseppe Primiero2,†
1
Department of Electronics, Information and Bioengineering, Politecnico di Milano, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, 20133,
Milan, Italy
2
LUCI Lab and PhilTech Research Center, Department of Philosophy, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Festa del
Perdono 7, 20122, Milan, Italy and MIRAI, Srl.
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems are not intrinsically neutral and biases trickle in any type of tech-
nological tool. In particular when dealing with people, the impact of AI algorithms’ technical errors
originating with mislabeled data is undeniable. As they feed wrong and discriminatory classifications,
these systems are not systematically guarded against bias. In this article we consider the problem of
bias in AI systems from the point of view of data quality dimensions. We highlight the limited model
construction of bias mitigation tools based on accuracy strategy, illustrating potential improvements of a
specific tool in gender classification errors occurring in two typically difficult contexts: the classification
of non-binary individuals, for which the label set becomes incomplete with respect to the dataset; and
the classification of transgender individuals, for which the dataset becomes inconsistent with respect
to the label set. Using formal methods for reasoning about the behavior of the classification system in
presence of a changing world, we propose to reconsider the fairness of the classification task in terms of
completeness, consistency, timeliness and reliability, and offer some theoretical results.
Keywords
Bias mitigation, Fairness, Information Quality, Mislabeling, Timeliness
1. Introduction
Machine Learning (ML) models trained on huge amounts of data are intrinsically biased when
dealing with people. Common face recognition systems used in surveillance tasks generate false
positives labeling innocent people as suspects. Social credit systems link individuals to the state
of their social credit, making decisions based on that score. In all of those cases, subjects suffer a
credibility deficit due to prejudices related to their social identity [1]: a dark-skinned man could
be characterized by a higher risk of recidivism after being arrested; a short-haired skinny young
woman – or a long-haired boy with feminine traits – might be the target of transphobic attacks
following misgendering. Through the deployment of these technologies, society makes the gap
separating rich from poor, cisnormative from non-cisnormative individuals, more constitutive
as automatized and standardized.
Already before the explosion of ML algorithms, [2] offered a framework for understanding
three categories of bias in computer systems, assuming the absence of bias as necessary to
AEQUITAS 2024: Workshop on Fairness and Bias in AI | co-located with ECAI 2024, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
∗
Corresponding author.
†
These authors contributed equally.
Envelope-Open camilla.quaresmini@polimi.it (C. Quaresmini); giuseppe.primiero@unimi.it (G. Primiero)
Orcid 0000-0002-6474-1284 (C. Quaresmini); 0000-0003-3264-7100 (G. Primiero)
© 2024 Copyright for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR
ceur-ws.org
Workshop ISSN 1613-0073
Proceedings
define their quality. Later on, the emergence of contemporary, data-driven AI systems based on
learning has significantly worsened the situation, see e.g. [3, 4]. On this basis, the development
and deployment of fairer Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems has been increasingly demanded.
Such request appears especially relevant in certain application contexts. For example, as
examined in [5], face is commonly used as a legitimate mean of gender classification, and this is
operazionalized and automatized in technologies such as Automatic Gender Recognition (AGR),
which algorithmically derives gender from faces’ physical traits to perform classification [6, 7].
This technique relies on the assumption that gender identity can be computationally derived
from facial traits. However, a recent study [8] shows that the most famous AGR systems are not
able to classify non-binary genders, also performing poorly on transgender individuals. This is
due to the fact that AGR incapsulates a binary, cisnormative conception of gender, adopting a
male/female scheme which invalidates non-binary identities.
We declare ourselves against the use of gender classification, as considering face as a proxy
for detecting gender identity seems to resonate with phrenology and physiognomy, and we
believe that the process of automatic gender recognition can easily lead to mismatches between
the theoretical understanding of constructs underlying identity and their operationalization [9],
especially when it comes to classification of individuals who recognise themselves outside of
binarism. However, we note that this kind of classification is already happening [10], spreading
with commercial systems offering gender classification as a standard feature, causing a huge
impact on the lives of misgendered individuals. Therefore there are contexts in which it is poten-
tially inevitable that classification exists, and in these contexts it must be fairer. This translates
into asking whether there is a strategy to ensure that the labels assigned during classification
are as less stereotypical and archetypal as possible. While this paper does not investigates the
ethical aspects of AGR, we aim at addressing the issues related to the classification strategies to
make them fairer, as an initial study to prepare for implementing mitigation strategies.
An important task, common to technology and philosophy, is therefore the identification and
verification of criteria that may help developing fairness conditions for AI systems. While a
number of techniques are available to mitigate bias, their primary focus on purely statistical
analysis to control accuracy across sensitive classes is clearly insufficient to control social
discrimination. A different approach is represented by the explicit formulation of ethical
principles to be verified across protected attributes, combining statistical measures with logical
reasoning, as formally defined in [11, 12, 13, 14, 15] and implemented by the BRIO tool in
[16, 17]. In this latter context, an important direction to explore for a refined definition of
ethically-laden verification criteria is the study of quality dimensions and associated biases.
In the following of this paper, we offer a theoretical contribution in this direction, preparing
the ground for a future implementation. We argue that, even if maximizing data quality and
fairness simultaneously can be hard as improving one can deteriorate the other [18], the task
of bias mitigation tools can be supported by reasoning on quality dimensions that so far have
been left ignored. In particular, we offer examples to show how dimensions of consistency,
completeness, timeliness and reliability can be used to establish fairer AI classification systems.
This research is in line with the quest for integrating useful empirical metrics on fairness in AI
with asking key (conceptual) questions, see [19].
The paper is structured as follows. In Section 2 we offer an overview of fainess definitions
and bias types relevant for this work. In Section 3 we briefly overview the technical details of
Table 1
Data and Label Bias.
Bias type Definition Literature
Data Bias
Behavioral bias User’s behavior can be different across contexts [38]
Exclusion bias Systematic exclusion of some data [39]
Historical bias Cultural prejudices are included into systematic processes [40]
Time interval bias Data collection in a too limited time range [41]
Label Bias
Chronological bias Distortion due to temporal changes in the world which data are [39]
supposed to represent
Historical bias Cultural prejudices are included into systematic processes [40]
Misclassification bias Data points are assigned to incorrect categories [42]
a particular bias mitigation tool to illustrate what we consider essential limitations of purely
statistical analyses. In Section 4 we introduce data quality dimensions arguing for reconsidering
their relevance in the task of evaluating the fairness of classification systems, presenting two
examples to justify this requirement. In Section 5 we propose a definition of fair AI classification
that includes such dimensions and formulate some theoretical results. Section 6 concludes the
work illustrating future research lines.
2. Fairness and Bias in ML
Despite a unique definition missing in the literature [2, 3, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25], fairness is
often presented as corresponding to the avoidance of bias [26]. This can be formulated at two
distinct levels: first, identifying and correcting problems in datasets [27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32], as
a model trained with a mislabeled dataset will provide biased outputs; second, correcting the
algorithms [21, 33], as even in the design of algorithms biases can emerge [34]. In the present
section we are interested in considering datasets and their labels. Indeed, bias may also affect
the label set [35, 36]. Accordingly, we talk about label quality bias when errors hit the quality of
labels. As shown in [37], the most well-known AI datasets are full of labeling errors. A crucial
task is therefore the development of conceptual strategies and technical tools to mitigate bias
emergence in both data and label sets.
A variety of approaches and contributions is available in the literature focusing on identifying
bias in datasets and labels. Here we list the types of bias which are relevant to the present
work, see Table 2. Albeit not exhaustive, these lists of biases represent a good starting point to
investigate quality dimensions required to address them. We now analyze a common mitigation
strategy used by existing tools addressing the issue of bias in data, showing their limitations.
We then study the bias in the classification algorithm (i.e., bias in labels) of the mitigation tool.
Table 2
Symbols used in the present work.
𝑡𝑛 Time index
𝒯 ∶= {𝑡1 , … , 𝑡𝑛 } Time frame
𝑑 Generic datapoint
𝑖, 𝑗, 𝑙 Data Labels
𝑦∗ Discrete random variable correctly labeled
𝑦̃ Discrete random variable wrongly labeled
[𝑚] The set of unique class labels
𝑦∗ → 𝑦̃ A mapping between variables
𝑝𝒯 [(𝑦̃ = 𝑖)𝑡𝑛 ∣ (𝑦∗ = 𝑗)𝑡𝑛−𝑚 ] The probability of label 𝑖 being wrong at time 𝑡𝑛 , given that label 𝑗 was
correct at time 𝑡𝑛−𝑚
𝐶𝑦,𝑦
̃ ∗ [𝑖, 𝑗, 𝒯 ] Temporal confident joint, where the correct label can change from 𝑖 to 𝑗
in time frame 𝒯
𝐶𝑦,𝑦∗
̃ [𝑖, 𝒯 ] Temporal confident joint, where the correctness of the same fixed label
𝑖 can change in time frame 𝒯
𝜀 Change rate
𝑝 ′̂ (𝑦;̃ 𝑥𝑖 ; 𝜃) Predicted probability of label 𝑦̃ for variable 𝑥𝑖 and model parameters 𝜃
𝐿 Label set
𝑋 AI system
𝐿𝑡1 ∶= {𝑙1 , … , 𝑙𝑛 } Partition of the label set
𝑃 Population of interest
𝑝 An element from 𝑃
𝑑(𝑋 )𝒯 A datapoint in system 𝑋 over time frame 𝒯
𝑦 ∗ (𝑑) A correct label for the datapoint 𝑑
𝜋 Threshold variable
3. Mitigating Bias
A bias mitigation algorithm is a procedure for reducing unwanted bias in training datasets or
models, with the aim to improve the fairness metrics. Those algorithms can be classified into
three categories [43]: pre-processing, when the training data is modified; in-processing, when
the learning algorithm is modified; post-processing, when the predictions are modified.
Several tools are available to audit and mitigate biases in datasets, thereby attempting to
implement diversity and to reach fairness. Among the most common are AIF360 [22], Aequitas
[44] and Cleanlab [45]. Recently a post-hoc evaluation model for bias mitigation has been
proposed by the tool BRIO [16, 17]. In this article, we consider Cleanlab as a testbed, illustrating
below in Section 4 its limitations in view of data quality dimensions. Instead, we propose
a theoretical frame for the resolution of such limitation in Section 5, further illustrating the
possibility to implement the present analysis in the tool BRIO. For an overview of the symbols
used from now on, see Table 2.
Cleanlab is a framework to find label errors in datasets. It uses Confident Learning (CL),
an approach which focuses on label quality with the aim to address uncertainty in dataset
labels using three principles: counting examples that are likely to belong to another class
using the confident joint and probabilistic thresholds to find label errors and to estimate noise;
pruning noisy data; and ranking examples to train with confidence on clean data. The three
approaches are combined by an initial assumption of a class-conditional noise process, to directly
estimate the joint distribution between noisy given labels and uncorrupted unknown ones.
For every class, the algorithm learns the probability of it being mislabeled as any other class.
This assumption may have exceptions but it is considered reasonable. For example, a “cat” is
more likely to be mislabeled as “tiger” than as “airplane”. This assumption is provided by the
classification noise process (CNP, [46]), which leads to the conclusion that the label noise only
depends on the latent true class, not on the data. CL [45] exactly finds label errors in datasets
by estimating the joint distribution of noisy and true labels. The idea is that when the predicted
probability of an example is greater than a threshold per class, we confidently consider that
example as actually belonging to the class of that threshold, where the thresholds for each class
are the average predicted probability of examples in that class. Given 𝑦̃ ∈ [𝑚] takes an observed,
noisy label (potentially flipped to an incorrect class); and 𝑦∗ ∈ [𝑚] takes the unknown (latent),
true, uncorrupted label (latent true label), CL assumes that for every example it exists a correct
label 𝑦∗ and defines a class-conditional noise process mapping 𝑦∗ → 𝑦,̃ such that every label in
class 𝑗 ∈ [𝑚] may be independently mislabeled as class 𝑖 ∈ [𝑚], with probability 𝑝(𝑦̃ = 𝑖 ∣ 𝑦∗ = 𝑗).
So, maps are associations of data to wrong labels. Then CL estimates 𝑝(𝑦̃ ∣ 𝑦∗) and 𝑝(𝑦∗)
jointly, evaluating the joint distribution of label noise 𝑝(𝑦,̃ 𝑦∗) between noisy given labels and
uncorrupted unknown labels. CL aims to estimate every 𝑝(𝑦,̃ 𝑦∗) as a matrix 𝑄𝑦,𝑦∗ ̃ to find all
mislabeled examples 𝑥 in dataset 𝑋, where 𝑦∗ ≠ 𝑦.̃ Given as inputs the out-of-sample predicted
̂ and the vector of noisy labels 𝑦𝑘̃ , the procedure is divided into three steps:
probabilities 𝑃𝑘,𝑖
estimation of 𝑄̂ 𝑦,𝑦∗
̃ to characterize class-conditional label noise, filtering of noisy examples,
training with the errors found.
To estimate 𝑄̂ 𝑦,𝑦∗
̃ i.e. the joint distribution of noisy labels 𝑦̃ and true labels 𝑦∗, CL counts
examples that may belong to another class using a statistical data structure named confident
joint 𝐶𝑦,𝑦∗
̃ , formally defined as follows
𝐶𝑦,𝑦∗ ̂̃
̃ [𝑖][𝑗] ∶=∣ 𝑋𝑦=𝑖,𝑦∗=𝑗 ∣ (1)
In other words, the confident joint estimates the set 𝑋𝑦=𝑖,𝑦∗=𝑗
̃ of examples with noisy label
i which actually have true label j by making a partition of the dataset 𝑋 into bins 𝑋̂ 𝑦=𝑖,𝑦∗=𝑗
̃ ,
namely the set of examples labeled 𝑦̃ = 𝑖 with large enough expected probability 𝑝(̂ 𝑦̃ = 𝑗; 𝑥, 𝜃)
to belong to class 𝑦∗ = 𝑗, determined by a per-class threshold 𝑡𝑗 , where 𝜃 is the model.
This kind of tools are extremely useful in estimating label error probabilities. However they
have some limitations, and it is easy to formulate examples for which their strategy seems
unsound. A first problem arises from the initial assumption of the categoricity of data. Take
for example the case of gender labeling of facial images, which is typically binary (i.e. with
values male, female). For each datapoint, a classification algorithm calculates the projected
probability that an image is assigned to the respective label. Consider though two very noisy
cases: images of non-binary individuals; images of transgender individuals. In the former case,
the label set becomes incomplete with respect to the dataset; in the second case, the dataset
is inconsistent with respect to the label set. Hence, there can be datapoints that have either
1) none of the available labels as the correct one, or 2) at different times they can be under
different labels. By definition, if we have disjoint labels there can be high accuracy but only
on those datapoints which identify themselves in the disjointed categories. In situations like
these, it appears that the dimension of accuracy alone does no longer satisfy the correctness of
the classification algorithm. In terms of quality dimensions, the possibility of an uncategorical
datapoint or that of a moving datapoint is no longer only an accuracy problem. Hence, the
identification of other data quality dimensions to be implemented in tools for bias mitigation
may help achieve more fairness in the classification task. In the next section we suggest an
improvement of the classification strategy by adding dimensions that should be considered
when evaluating the fairness of the classification itself.
4. Extending Data Dimensions for Fair AI
In the literature, data quality dimensions are defined both informally and qualitatively. Metrics
can be associated as indicators of the dimension’s quality. However, there is no single and
objective vision of data quality dimensions, nor a universal definition for each dimension. This
is because often dimensions escape or exceed a formal definition. The cause of the large amount
of dimensions [47, 48] also lies in the fact that data aim to represent all spatial, temporal and
social phenomena of the real world [49]. Furthermore, they are constantly evolving in response
to continuous development of new data-driven technologies.
For the purposes of our analysis, we focus on the following basic set of data quality dimensions
which is the focus of the majority of authors in the literature [50, 51]:
• Accuracy, i.e. the closeness between a value 𝑣 and a value 𝑣 ′ , where the latter is the correct
representation of the real-life phenomenon that 𝑣 aims to represent [47];
• Completeness, i.e. the level at which data have the sufficient breadth, depth, and scope for
their task [48, 52, 47];
• Consistency, i.e. the coherence dimension: it amounts to check whether or not the
semantic rules defined on a set of data elements have been respected [47];
• Timeliness, the data freshness over time for a specific task [53, 54].
We thus indicate them as potential candidates to be implemented in the context of bias
mitigation strategies. In particular, we argue that, as data are characterized by evolution over
time, the timeliness dimension [47] can be taken as basis for other categories of data quality.
We aim at suggesting improvements on errors identification in the classification of datapoints,
using the gender attribute as an illustrative case. We thus suggest the extension of classification
with dimensions of completeness, consistency and timeliness and then return to Cleanlab to
illustrate how this extension could be practically implemented.
4.1. Incomplete Label Set and Inconsistent Labeling
Consider the first example of a datapoint which represents a non-binary individual. This kind
of identity is rarely considered in technology [55]. Non-binary identities do not recognize them-
selves within the binary approach characteristic of classification systems. As such, individual
identity is not correctly recognized by the classification system, highlighting the insufficiency
of the model which flattens the gender identity umbrella on the two options of male/female.
The conceptual solution would be to simply assume the label set as incomplete. This means that
the bias origin is in the pre-processing phase, and a possible strategy is to extend the partition
of the labels adding categories as appropriate, e.g. “non binary”. The problem is here reduced
to the consideration of the completeness of the label set. [8] can be considered a first attempt in
this direction.
Consider now a transgender datapoint whose identity shifts over time, being a fluid datapoint
by definition. Currently AI systems operationalize gender in a way which is completely trans-
exclusive, see e.g. [7, 6]. However, identity is not static: it may move with respect to the labels
we have, leading the datapoint to be configured in a label or in a different one during a selected
time range. In this case, any extension of the label set is misleading, or at least insufficient.
Here we cannot just add more categories, but we have to find a logical solution to changing the
label of the same datapoint at different timepoints.
4.2. Enter Time
The two problems above can be formulated adding to completeness and consistency the dimen-
sion of temporality. Thus, an important starting point is represented by adding the dimension of
timeliness, which concerns the degree to which data represent reality within a certain defined
time range for a given population.
We suggest here considering the labeling task within a given time frame, whose length
depends on the dataset and the classification task over the pairing of datapoints to labels, to
measure a probability of a label-change over time. Intuitively, if the analysis is performed less
than a certain number of timestamps away from the last data labeling, then we consider the
labeling still valid. Otherwise, a new analysis with respect to both completeness of the dataset
and label set must be performed. Technically, this means associating temporal parameters
to labels and to compute the probability that a given label might change over the given time
frame. The probability of a label being correct (its accuracy) decreases within the respective
temporal window. In particular, reasoning on the temporal evolution of the dataset could allow
us to model the evolution of the label partitions. Two fundamental theses are suggested for
evaluation: the correctness of the task does no longer assume static completeness of the label
set, i.e. given the label set is complete at time 𝑡𝑛 , it can be incomplete at time 𝑡𝑛+𝑚 ; the labeling
does no longer assume static perseverance of the labels, that is, given a label 𝑖 that is correct at
a time 𝑡𝑛 for a datapoint 𝑑, it could be incorrect at a later time, and conversely if it is incorrect it
could become correct.
4.3. Back to Cleanlab
Considering a possible implementation in Cleanlab able to account for such differences implies
renouncing the starting assumption on the categoricity of the data. Instead, assume that the
probability of assigning a label may change over time. This can be formulated in two distinct
ways. First, the probability value of a given label 𝑖 being wrong, given a label 𝑗 is correct (their
distance) may change over time. The task is now to give a mapping of all the label-variable
pairs, i.e. given a mapping 𝑦∗ → 𝑦̃ between variables, where 𝑦∗ is the correct label and 𝑦̃ the
wrong one, compute the probability over the time frame 𝒯 ∶= {𝑡1 , … , 𝑡𝑛 }
𝑝𝒯 [(𝑦̃ = 𝑖)𝑡𝑛 ∣ (𝑦∗ = 𝑗)𝑡𝑛−𝑚 ] (2)
such that label 𝑖 is wrong at time 𝑡𝑛 , given that label 𝑗 was correct at time 𝑡𝑛−𝑚 . This probability
can increase or decrease, depending on the dataset and on the label set. For the definition of the
confident joint, this means taking the evaluation of all the elements that have an incorrect label
𝑖 when their correct label is 𝑗, and then associate the wrong label to a time 𝑡𝑛 and the correct
label to a previous time. This estimate must be made on all time points, so for every 𝑚 < 𝑛.
Given a timepoint 𝑛 at which the label is wrong, the estimate on all pairs of probabilities for
that point with a previous point in which another label can be correct has to be computed
𝑛∈𝒯
𝐶𝑦,𝑦∗
̃ [𝑖, 𝑗, 𝒯 ] ∶= ∑ ∣ 𝑋̂ 𝑦=𝑖
̃ 𝑡 ,𝑦∗=𝑗𝑡 ∣ (3)
𝑛 𝑛−𝑚
1≤𝑚<𝑛∈𝒯
Second, given a mapping 𝑦∗ → 𝑦̃ between variables, where 𝑦∗ is the correct label and 𝑦̃ the
wrong one, what is the probability
𝑝𝒯 [(𝑦̃ = 𝑖)𝑡𝑛 ∣ (𝑦∗ = 𝑖)𝑡𝑛−𝑚 ] (4)
such that label 𝑖 is wrong at time 𝑡𝑛 , given that the same label 𝑖 was correct at time 𝑡𝑛−𝑚 ? In
this case, the same label is fixed and the probability that it becomes incorrect can be calculated.
The definition of confident joint thus becomes
𝑛∈𝒯
𝐶𝑦,𝑦∗
̃ [𝑖, 𝒯 ] ∶= ∑ ∣ 𝑋̂ 𝑦=𝑖
̃ 𝑡 ,𝑦∗=𝑖𝑡 ∣ (5)
𝑛 𝑛−𝑚
1≤𝑚<𝑛∈𝒯
To illustrate the point we consider a toy example. Compute
[𝑝(𝑦∗=𝑗∧𝑦=𝑖)]
̃
𝑝(𝑦∗ = 𝑗 ∣ 𝑦̃ = 𝑖) ⋅ 𝑝(𝑦̃ = 𝑖) 𝑝(𝑦=𝑖)
̃
⋅ 𝑝(𝑦̃ = 𝑖)
𝑝(𝑦̃ = 𝑖 ∣ 𝑦∗ = 𝑗) = = (6)
𝑝(𝑦∗ = 𝑗) 𝑝(𝑦∗ = 𝑗)
i.e. the error rate of 𝑦∗ = 𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑒 has to be determined. First, a confusion matrix is constructed
to analyze errors. Suppose to have a dataset of 10 datapoints, see Figure 1. From the matrix,
𝑝(𝑦∗ = 𝑗) = 5/10 and 𝑝(𝑦̃ = 𝑖) = 4/10. So there are 5 women, of which 2 are incorrectly labeled
“male” and 3 are correctly labeled “female”, and 5 men of which 1 is incorrectly labeled “female”
and 4 are correctly labeled “male”. Replacing the values in Equation 6, 𝑝(𝑦̃ = 𝑖 ∣ 𝑦∗ = 𝑗) = 0.2.
The obtained value represents the error rate of the “male” label, i.e. the probability of a male
datapoint being labeled “female”. Looking at the diagonals, the true positive rate TPR = 70%
and the false positive rate FPR = 30%.
Consider now the same dataset at a later time 𝑡𝑛+𝑚 , see Figure 2. The labels might have
changed. From the matrix, 𝑝(𝑦∗ = 𝑗) = 5/10 and that 𝑝(𝑦̃ = 𝑖) = 5/10. Now there are 5 women,
of which 3 are incorrectly labeled “male” and 2 are correctly labeled “female”, and 5 men of
which 3 are incorrectly labeled“female” and 2 are correctly labeled “male”. Replacing again the
values in 6, 𝑝 ′ (𝑦̃ = 𝑖 ∣ 𝑦∗ = 𝑗) = 0.6. In this case the true positive rate TPR = 40% and the false
positive rate FPR = 60%.
Figure 1: Confusion matrix at time 𝑛. Figure 2: Confusion matrix at time 𝑛 + 𝑚.
To understand how the error rate changes, the difference between the two matrices has to be
considered. Thus, the change rate can be computed as 𝜀 = 𝑝 ′̂ (𝑦;̃ 𝑥𝑖 ; 𝜃) − 𝑝(̂ 𝑦;̃ 𝑥𝑖 ; 𝜃) = 0.4.
Now 𝑝𝒯 [(𝑦̃ = 𝑖)𝑡𝑛 ∣ (𝑦∗ = 𝑗)𝑡𝑛−𝑚 ] can be written as 𝑝𝒯 [(𝑦̃ = 𝑖)𝑡𝑛+𝑚 ∣ (𝑦∗ = 𝑗)𝑡𝑛 ]. Thus,
at a time 𝑡𝑛 we have 𝑝𝑡𝑛 (𝑦∗ = 𝑗) = 1 − 𝑝(𝑦̃ = 𝑖)𝑡𝑛 ). At a subsequent time 𝑡𝑛+𝑚 we have
𝑝𝑡𝑛+𝑚 (𝑦∗ = 𝑗) = 1 − 𝑝(𝑦̃ = 𝑖)𝑡𝑛+𝑚 . Equation 6 can be computed with respect to time as
𝑝[(𝑦∗ = 𝑗) ∣ (𝑦̃ = 𝑖)]𝑡𝑛+𝑚 ⋅ [𝑝(𝑦̃ = 𝑖)𝑡𝑛 ± 𝜀]
𝑝𝒯 [(𝑦̃ = 𝑖)𝑡𝑛+𝑚 ∣ (𝑦∗ = 𝑗)𝑡𝑛 ] = = 0.288 (7)
𝑝(𝑦∗ = 𝑗)𝑡𝑛
This value represents the (highest) probability that a given label is wrong at a given time,
provided it was correct at some previous time. Indirectly, this also expresses the probability
that the labeling set is applied to a dataset containing a point for which the labeling becomes
inconsistent over time.
5. Temporal-based Fairness in AI
We have argued that a more general discussion on the data dimensions to be adopted in bias
mitigation tools is needed, and in particular that the dimension of timeliness is crucial. In this
section we summarise our proposal and offer non-exhaustive criteria for fairness in AI based
on such temporal approach along with some basic theoretical results.
The first metric that has been addressed in this work is completeness as applied to the label
set. In a world where gender classification is actually changing, the present strategy includes
the completeness dimension in the quality assessment, verifying that the label set is complete
with respect to the ontology of the world at the time this assessment is made. The solution
here is to extend the label set as desired adding new labels for the classification task, as already
suggested in [8]. Additionally, we suggest an explicit temporal parametrization: completeness
can be considered as a relationship between a label set and an individual 𝑝 belonging to a certain
population 𝑃, where 𝑝 is any domain item that enters 𝑃 at a time 𝑡. We must ensure that a correct
label 𝑙 exists for each datapoint in the dataset at each time.
Definition 1 (Completeness of a label set). A label set 𝐿 for a classification algorithm in a AI
system 𝑋 is considered complete over a time frame 𝒯 ∶ {𝑡1 , … , 𝑡𝑛 } denoted as 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑙𝒯 (𝐿(𝑋 )) iff
given two partitions 𝐿𝑡1 ∶= {𝑙1 , … , 𝑙𝑛 } and 𝐿𝑡𝑛 ∶= {𝑙1′ , … , 𝑙𝑛′ }, where possibly 𝐿𝑡1 ∩ 𝐿𝑡𝑛 ≠ ∅ for all
(𝑝 ∈ 𝑃)𝒯 s.t. 𝑝 ∈ 𝑑(𝑋 )𝒯 there is 𝑙 ∈ 𝐿𝑡1 ∪ 𝐿𝑡𝑛 s.t. 𝑦 ∗ (𝑑) = 𝑙.
In other words, the completeness of a dataset over a time frame is granted if for every
datapoint representing an element in the population of interest there exists at any two possibly
consecutive points in time a correct label for it.
Next, we considered consistency of the label set with respect to datapoints possibly shifting
in categorization. The method here again is to reduce consistency to timeliness. We suggest
to compute the probability of an inconsistency arising from a correct label change. Accuracy,
albeit the most used metric for evaluating classification models’ performances due to its easy
calculability and interpretation, is reductive, trivial and incorrect in some contexts. For example,
if the distribution of the class is distorted, accuracy is no longer a useful, nor a relevant metric.
Even worse, sometimes greater accuracy leads to greater unfairness [56]: some labels like race
or gender may allow models to be more predictive, although it seems to be often controversial to
use such categories to increase predictive performance. We have suggested to consider temporal
accuracy [57] as a function of the error rate over time.
The ability to compute the variance in the error rate across time is functional to determine
the reliability of AI systems. This metric is linked to the notion of accuracy, as it is considered
as a measure of data correctness, see [47]. In [48] and [57] reliability is even contained in the
definition of accuracy itself: data must be reliable to satisfy the accuracy dimension. Overall, it
seems that reliability is not actually controlled beyond physical reliability, as in the literature on
data quality there is no formal definition to compute it. However, following [58] the previously
provided temporal approach is again useful: evaluating reliability is based on the revisions
which show how close the initial estimate of accuracy is to the following ones. In this sense,
reliability can be reduced to accuracy over time in terms of a threshold on the error rate:
Definition 2 (Reliability of a classification algorithm). A classification algorithm in a AI system
𝑋 is considered reliable over a time frame 𝒯 ∶= {𝑡1 , … , 𝑡𝑛 } denoted as 𝑅𝑒𝑙𝒯 (𝑋 ) iff 𝜀𝒯 (𝑋 ) < 𝜋, for
some safe value 𝜋.
The change rate 𝜀 we have computed shows how much the system’s accuracy deteriorates. If
it exceeds a fixed safe value 𝜋, the system is no longer accurate. Plain accuracy is the numerical
measure at some time 𝑡 ∈ 𝒯 ∶= {𝑡1 , … , 𝑡𝑛 }. If this value does not deteriorate over a certain fixed
threshold, the system is considered reliable, and therefore accurate with respect to time.
The two previous definitions offer non-exhaustive criteria for the identification of fair AI
systems:
Definition 3 (Fairness for AI classification systems). 𝐹 𝑎𝑖𝑟𝒯 (𝑋 ) only if 𝑅𝑒𝑙𝒯 (𝑋 ) and
𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑙𝒯 (𝐿(𝑋 )).
Hence we claim that fairness requires the system’s ability to give reliable and correct outcomes
over time. While we do not consider these properties sufficient, we believe they are necessary.
On this basis, we can formulate two immediate theoretical results:
Theorem 1. Given a label set 𝐿 complete at time 𝑡, a classification algorithm guarantees a fair
classification at time 𝑡 ′ > 𝑡 if and only if the change rate determined with respect to 𝐿 is 𝜖 < 𝜋.
Proof. Assume 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑡 (𝐿(𝑋 )), then for 𝐹 𝑎𝑖𝑟𝑡 ′ (𝑋 ) we need to show 𝑅𝑒𝑙𝑡 ′ (𝑋 ) for 𝑡 ′ > 𝑡 ∈ 𝒯. Assume
𝜖 > 𝜋, then by Definition 2 reliability is not satisfied; hence, if 𝑅𝑒𝑙𝒯 (𝑋 ), it must be the case that
𝜖 < 𝜋.
Theorem 2. Given a fixed change rate 𝜖 < 𝜋, a classification algorithm with fair behaviour at
time 𝑡 remains fair at time 𝑡 ′ > 𝑡 if and only if the change to make the label set complete at time 𝑡 ′
does not exceed an 𝜖 ′ such that 𝜖 + 𝜖 ′ > 𝜋.
Proof. Consider 𝐹 𝑎𝑖𝑟𝑡 (𝑋 ) with change rate 0 < 𝜋 as a base case, then by Definition 3 𝑅𝑒𝑙𝑡 (𝑋 ) and
𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑡 (𝐿(𝑋 )). Now consider 𝑡 ′ > 𝑡 and a required change 𝜖 ′ in 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑡 (𝐿(𝑋 )) such that 𝑅𝑒𝑙𝑡 ′ (𝑋 )
holds. This obviously holds only if 0 + 𝜖 ′ < 𝜋. Generalize for any 𝜖 > 0.
Note that in these results the value of 𝜖, respectively 𝜖 ′ , is a proxy for how much the world
has changed at 𝑡 ′ with respect to 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑡 (𝐿(𝑋 )).
In the context of an incomplete label set, a detected label bias can originate from an exclusion
bias in data, which can also result from a time interval bias. In the case of label-changing
datapoints a chronological bias occurs. Then, misclassification bias can be reduced to the two
previous types. In the context of use, emergent bias can arise as a result of changes in societies
and cultures. It might appear in data as chronological, historical or behavioral bias. Here, a
different value bias occurs for example when the users are different from the assumed ones
during the system’s development. This is the case of ontology switching, to which a label set
must adapt. These types of bias can be mitigated by implementing the proposed framework. The
tool BRIO [16, 17] works as a post-hoc model evaluation, taking in input the test dataset of the
model under investigation and its output. The tool allows to investigate behavioural differences
of the model both with respect to an internal analysis on the classes of interest, and externally
with respect to chosen reference metrics. Morever, it allows to measure bias amplification
comparing the bias present in the dataset and how that manifests itself in the output. While
the present work does not aim at offering a full implementation of our theoretical analysis for
the BRIO tool, some remarks are appropriate. The time-based analysis of completeness and
reliability offered in Definitions 1 and 2, in turn grounding a notion of fairness in Definition
3 are easily implementable in BRIO: both completeness and reliability require the definition
of a timeframe to check respectively that any given datapoint of interest is matched against
a desirable label and that the overall change rate of error for one or more classes of interest
does not surpass a certain threshold. Both features rely on the user for the identification of the
desirable label for any datapoint and for the admissible distance.
6. Conclusion
We presented some recommendations for AI systems design, focusing on timeliness as a founding
dimension for developing fairer and more inclusive classification tools. Despite the crucial
importance of accuracy as shown by significant works such as [4] and [59], the problem of
unfairness in AI systems is much broader and more foundational. This can be expressed in terms
of data quality: AI systems are limited in that they maximize accuracy, and even if systems
become statistically accurate some problems remain unsolved. This is exemplified by the case
of binary gender labeling, which leads to inaccurate simplistic classifications [60]. Furthermore,
as the work of classification is always a reflection of culture, the completeness of the label
set and the (constrained) consistency of labeling have an epistemological value: constructing
AIs requires us to understand society, and society reflects an ontology of individuals. For this
reason, misgendering is first of all an ontological error [6].
We suggested that timeliness is a crucial dimension for the definition of gender identity. If
we are ready to consider gender as a property that shifts over time [61], and which can also
be declined in the plural, as an individual may identify under more than one - not mutually
exclusive - labels, then a change of paradigm is required. Design limitations such as binarism
and staticity invalidate identities which do not fit into this paradigm. They must be addressed if
fairer classifications and more inclusive models of gender are to be designed.
Further work in this direction includes: an implementation and empirical validation of
the proposed model through the BRIO tool; and the design of an extension to compute the
probability of incorrect labels becoming correct over time, i.e. the dual case of what presently
addressed.
Acknowledgments
This research has been partially funded by the Projects: PRIN2020 BRIO (2020SSKZ7R), PRIN2022
SMARTEST (20223E8Y4X), “Departments of Excellence 2023-2027” of the Department of Phi-
losophy “Piero Martinetti” of the University of Milan, all awarded by the Italian Ministry of
University and Research (MUR); and MUSA – Multilayered Urban Sustainability Action, funded
by the European Union – NextGenerationEU, under the National Recovery and Resilience Plan
(NRRP) Mission 4 Component 2 Investment Line 1.5: Strenghtening of research structures and
creation of R&D “innovation ecosystems”, set up of “territorial leaders in R&D”.
References
[1] M. Fricker, Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing, New York: Oxford
University Press, 2007.
[2] B. Friedman, H. Nissenbaum, Bias in computer systems, ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 14 (1996)
330–347.
[3] N. Mehrabi, F. Morstatter, N. Saxena, K. Lerman, A. Galstyan, A survey on bias and fairness
in machine learning, CoRR abs/1908.09635 (2019). URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1908.09635.
arXiv:1908.09635 .
[4] J. Buolamwini, T. Gebru, Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial
gender classification, in: Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency, FAT
2018, 23-24 February 2018, New York, NY, USA, volume 81, PMLR, 2018, pp. 77–91.
[5] A. Hanna, M. Pape, M. K. Scheuerman, Auto-essentialization: Gender in automated
facial analysis as extended colonial project, Big Data and Society 8 (2021). doi:10.1177/
20539517211053712 .
[6] O. Keyes, The misgendering machines: Trans/HCI implications of automatic gender
recognition, Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2 (2018). URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/
3274357. doi:10.1145/3274357 .
[7] F. Hamidi, M. K. Scheuerman, S. M. Branham, Gender recognition or gender reductionism?
the social implications of embedded gender recognition systems, in: Proceedings of the
2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI ’18, Association for
Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2018, p. 1–13. URL: https://doi.org/10.1145/
3173574.3173582. doi:10.1145/3173574.3173582 .
[8] M. K. Scheuerman, J. Paul, J. Brubaker, How computers see gender: An evaluation of
gender classification in commercial facial analysis services, Proceedings of the ACM on
Human-Computer Interaction 3 (2019) 1–33. doi:10.1145/3359246 .
[9] A. Z. Jacobs, H. M. Wallach, Measurement and fairness, CoRR abs/1912.05511 (2019). URL:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1912.05511. arXiv:1912.05511 .
[10] A. Ramon, G. Olaoye, A. Luz, Machine learning algorithms for gender prediction (2024).
[11] F. A. D’Asaro, G. Primiero, Probabilistic typed natural deduction for trustworthy compu-
tations, in: D. Wang, R. Falcone, J. Zhang (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd International
Workshop on Trust in Agent Societies (TRUST 2021) Co-located with the 20th International
Conferences on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS 2021), London,
UK, May 3-7, 2021, volume 3022 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings, CEUR-WS.org, 2021. URL:
http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3022/paper3.pdf.
[12] G. Primiero, F. A. D’Asaro, Proof-checking bias in labeling methods, in: G. Boella, F. A.
D’Asaro, A. Dyoub, G. Primiero (Eds.), Proceedings of 1st Workshop on Bias, Ethical AI,
Explainability and the Role of Logic and Logic Programming (BEWARE 2022) co-located
with the 21th International Conference of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence
(AI*IA 2022), Udine, Italy, December 2, 2022, volume 3319 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings,
CEUR-WS.org, 2022, pp. 9–19. URL: https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3319/paper1.pdf.
[13] A. Termine, G. Primiero, F. A. D’Asaro, Modelling accuracy and trustworthiness of
explaining agents, in: S. Ghosh, T. Icard (Eds.), Logic, Rationality, and Interaction - 8th
International Workshop, LORI 2021, Xi’ian, China, October 16-18, 2021, Proceedings,
volume 13039 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, 2021, pp. 232–245. URL:
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-88708-7_19. doi:10.1007/978- 3- 030- 88708- 7\_19 .
[14] F. A. D’Asaro, F. Genco, G. Primiero, Checking trustworthiness of probabilistic computa-
tions in a typed natural deduction system, 2024. arXiv:2206.12934 .
[15] E. Kubyshkina, G. Primiero, A possible worlds semantics for trustworthy non-deterministic
computations, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning (2024) 109212. URL: https:
//www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0888613X24000999. doi:https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijar.2024.109212 .
[16] G. Coraglia, F. A. D’Asaro, F. A. Genco, D. Giannuzzi, D. Posillipo, G. Primiero, C. Quaggio,
Brioxalkemy: a bias detecting tool, in: G. Boella, F. A. D’Asaro, A. Dyoub, L. Gorrieri, F. A.
Lisi, C. Manganini, G. Primiero (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Bias, Ethical
AI, Explainability and the role of Logic and Logic Programming co-located with the 22nd
International Conference of the Italian Association for Artificial Intelligence (AI*IA 2023),
Rome, Italy, November 6, 2023, volume 3615 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings, CEUR-WS.org,
2023, pp. 44–60. URL: https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3615/paper4.pdf.
[17] G. Coraglia, F. A. Genco, P. Piantadosi, E. Bagli, P. Giuffrida, D. Posillipo, G. Primiero,
Evaluating ai fairness in credit scoring with the brio tool, 2024. arXiv:2406.03292 .
[18] F. Azzalini, C. Cappiello, C. Criscuolo, S. Cuzzucoli, A. Dangelo, C. Sancricca, L. Tanca,
Data quality and fairness: Rivals or friends?, in: D. Calvanese, C. Diamantini, G. Faggioli,
N. F. 0001, S. M. 0001, G. Silvello, L. Tanca (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Symposium of
Advanced Database Systems, Galzingano Terme, Italy, July 2nd to 5th, 2023, volume 3478
of CEUR Workshop Proceedings, CEUR-WS.org, 2023, pp. 239–247. URL: https://ceur-ws.
org/Vol-3478/paper68.pdf.
[19] T. Scantamburlo, Non-empirical problems in fair machine learning, Ethics Inf. Tech-
nol. 23 (2021) 703–712. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-021-09608-9. doi:10.1007/
s10676- 021- 09608- 9 .
[20] C. Dwork, M. Hardt, T. Pitassi, O. Reingold, R. S. Zemel, Fairness through awareness,
CoRR abs/1104.3913 (2011). URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.3913. arXiv:1104.3913 .
[21] N. Grgic-Hlaca, M. B. Zafar, K. P. Gummadi, A. Weller, The case for process fairness in
learning: Feature selection for fair decision making, 2016.
[22] R. K. E. Bellamy, K. Dey, M. Hind, S. C. Hoffman, S. Houde, K. Kannan, P. Lohia, S. Martino,
J. and. Mehta, A. Mojsilovic, S. Nagar, K. N. Ramamurthy, J. Richards, D. Saha, P. Sattigeri,
M. Singh, K. R. Varshney, Y. Zhang, Ai fairness 360: An extensible toolkit for detecting,
understanding, and mitigating unwanted algorithmic bias, 2018.
[23] T. H. Aasheim, K. Hufthammer, S. Ånneland, H. Brynjulfsen, M. Slavkovik, Bias mitigation
with aif360: A comparative study, in: Proceedings of the NIK-2020 Conference, 2020. URL:
http://www.nik.no/.
[24] M. J. Kusner, J. R. Loftus, C. Russell, R. Silva, Counterfactual fairness, 2018.
arXiv:1703.06856 .
[25] M. Hardt, E. Price, N. Srebro, Equality of opportunity in supervised learning, CoRR
abs/1610.02413 (2016). URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1610.02413. arXiv:1610.02413 .
[26] S. Feuerriegel, M. Dolata, G. Schwabe, Fair AI: Challenges and opportunities, Business
Information Systems Engineering 62 (2020). doi:10.1007/s12599- 020- 00650- 3 .
[27] F. Kamiran, T. Calders, Data pre-processing techniques for classification without discrimi-
nation, Knowledge and Information Systems 33 (2011). doi:10.1007/s10115- 011- 0463- 8 .
[28] F. Azzalini, C. Criscuolo, L. Tanca, E-fair-db: Functional dependencies to discover data
bias and enhance data equity, J. Data and Information Quality 14 (2022). URL: https:
//doi.org/10.1145/3552433. doi:10.1145/3552433 .
[29] H. Weerts, M. Dudík, R. Edgar, A. Jalali, R. Lutz, M. Madaio, Fairlearn: Assessing and
improving fairness of ai systems, 2023. arXiv:2303.16626 .
[30] F. P. Calmon, D. Wei, K. N. Ramamurthy, K. R. Varshney, Optimized data pre-processing
for discrimination prevention, 2017. arXiv:1704.03354 .
[31] M. Feldman, S. Friedler, J. Moeller, C. Scheidegger, S. Venkatasubramanian, Certifying and
removing disparate impact, 2015. arXiv:1412.3756 .
[32] R. Zemel, Y. Wu, K. Swersky, T. Pitassi, C. Dwork, Learning fair representations, in:
S. Dasgupta, D. McAllester (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on
Machine Learning, volume 28 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, PMLR, Atlanta,
Georgia, USA, 2013, pp. 325–333. URL: https://proceedings.mlr.press/v28/zemel13.html.
[33] T. Kamishima, S. Akaho, H. Asoh, J. Sakuma, Fairness-aware classifier with prejudice
remover regularizer, 2012, pp. 35–50. doi:10.1007/978- 3- 642- 33486- 3_3 .
[34] S. Hooker, Moving beyond algorithmic bias is a data problem, Patterns 2 (2021).
[35] S. H. Sengamedu, H. Pham, Fairlabel: Correcting bias in labels, 2023. arXiv:2311.00638 .
[36] H. Jiang, O. Nachum, Identifying and correcting label bias in machine learning, 2019.
arXiv:1901.04966 .
[37] C. G. Northcutt, A. Athalye, J. Mueller, Pervasive label errors in test sets destabilize machine
learning benchmarks, 2021. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/pdf/2103.14749.pdf.
[38] A. Olteanu, C. Castillo, F. Diaz, E. Kiciman, Social data: Biases, methodological pitfalls,
and ethical boundaries, Frontiers in Big Data 2 (2019).
[39] S. Fabbrizzi, S. Papadopoulos, E. Ntoutsi, I. Kompatsiaris, A survey on bias in visual
datasets, CoRR abs/2107.07919 (2021).
[40] H. Suresh, J. Guttag, A framework for understanding sources of harm throughout the ma-
chine learning life cycle, Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization
(2021).
[41] CertNexus, Promote the ethical use of data-driven technologies, 2021. https:
//www.coursera.org/learn/promote-ethical-data-driven-technologies/lecture/5Ufbp/
data-collection-bias.
[42] U. o. O. Centre for Evidence-Based, Catalogue of bias, 2022. https://catalogofbias.org/
biases/.
[43] B. D’Alessandro, C. O’Neil, T. LaGatta, Conscientious classification: A data scientist’s
guide to discrimination-aware classification, Big Data 5 (2017) 120–134.
[44] P. Saleiro, B. Kuester, L. Hinkson, J. London, A. Stevens, A. Anisfeld, K. T. Rodolfa, R. Ghani,
Aequitas: A bias and fairness audit toolkit, arXiv preprint arXiv:1811.05577 (2018).
[45] C. G. Northcutt, L. Jiang, I. L. Chuang, Confident learning: Estimating uncertainty in
dataset labels, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research (JAIR) 70 (2021) 1373–1411.
[46] D. Angluin, P. D. Laird, Learning from noisy examples, Mach. Learn. 2 (1987) 343–370.
[47] C. Batini, M. Scannapieco, Data Quality: Concepts, Methodologies and Techniques,
Springer, 2006.
[48] R. Y. Wang, D. M. Strong, Beyond accuracy: What data quality means to data consumers,
J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 12 (1996) 5–33.
[49] S. Canali, Towards a contextual approach to data quality, Data 5 (2020) 90. doi:10.3390/
data5040090 .
[50] C. Batini, C. Cappiello, C. Francalanci, A. Maurino, Methodologies for data quality assess-
ment and improvement, ACM computing surveys (CSUR) 41 (2009) 1–52.
[51] M. Scannapieco, T. Catarci, Data quality under a computer science perspective, Journal of
The ACM - JACM 2 (2002).
[52] L. Pipino, Y. W. Lee, R. Y. Wang, Data quality assessment, Commun. ACM 45 (2002)
211–218.
[53] A. Rula, et al., Time-related quality dimensions in linked data (2014).
[54] A. Zaveri, A. Rula, A. Maurino, R. Pietrobon, J. Lehmann, S. Auer, Quality assessment for
linked data: A survey, Semantic Web 7 (2016) 63–93.
[55] K. Spiel, O. Keyes, P. Barlas, Patching gender: Non-binary utopias in hci, 2019, pp. 1–11.
doi:10.1145/3290607.3310425 .
[56] A. Nielsen, Practical Fairness, O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2020. URL: http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/
index.php?md5=F9752B2F9693C98855A51504FE224DF6.
[57] C. Batini, A. Rula, M. Scannapieco, G. Viscusi, From data quality to big data quality, Journal
of Database Management 26 (2015) 60–82. doi:10.4018/JDM.2015010103 .
[58] A. Black, P. Van Nederpelt, Dimensions of Data Quality (DDQ), DAMA NL Foundation,
2020.
[59] J. Angwin, J. Larson, S. Mattu, L. Kirchner, Machine bias, ProPublica (2016).
[60] E. Edenberg, A. Wood, An epistemic lens on algorithmic fairness, in: Eaamo ’23: Proceed-
ings of the 3Rd Acm Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and
Optimization, 2023, pp. 1–10.
[61] B. Ruberg, S. Ruelos, Data for queer lives: How LGBTQ gender and sexuality iden-
tities challenge norms of demographics, Big Data and Society 7 (2020). doi:10.1177/
2053951720933286 .