Toward Mitigating Sex Bias in Pilot Trainees' Stress and Fatigue Modeling

While researchers have been trying to understand the stress and fatigue among pilots, especially pilot trainees, and to develop stress/fatigue models to automate the process of detecting stress/fatigue, they often do not consider biases such as sex in those models. However, in a critical profession like aviation, where the demographic distribution is disproportionately skewed to one sex, it is urgent to mitigate biases for fair and safe model predictions. In this work, we investigate the perceived stress/fatigue of 69 college students, including 40 pilot trainees with around 63% male. We construct models with decision trees first without bias mitigation and then with bias mitigation using a threshold optimizer with demographic parity and equalized odds constraints 30 times with random instances. Using bias mitigation, we achieve improvements of 88.31% (demographic parity difference) and 54.26% (equalized odds difference), which are also found to be statistically significant.

Mitigating Sex Bias in Audio Data-driven COPD and COVID-19 Breathing Pattern Detection Models

In the healthcare industry, researchers have been developing machine learning models to automate diagnosing patients with respiratory illnesses based on their breathing patterns. However, these models do not consider the demographic biases, particularly sex bias, that often occur when models are trained with a skewed patient dataset. Hence, it is essential in such an important industry to reduce this bias so that models can make fair diagnoses. In this work, we examine the bias in models used to detect breathing patterns of two major respiratory diseases, i.e., chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and COVID-19. Using decision tree models trained with audio recordings of breathing patterns obtained from two open-source datasets consisting of 29 COPD and 680 COVID-19-positive patients, we analyze the effect of sex bias on the models. With a threshold optimizer and two constraints (demographic parity and equalized odds) to mitigate the bias, we witness 81.43% (demographic parity difference) and 71.81% (equalized odds difference) improvements. These findings are statistically significant.