Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Understanding and improving fairness in cognitive diagnosis

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Science China Information Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Intelligent education is a significant application of artificial intelligence. One of the key research topics in intelligence education is cognitive diagnosis, which aims to gauge the level of proficiency among students on specific knowledge concepts (e.g., Geometry). To the best of our knowledge, most of the existing cognitive models primarily focus on improving diagnostic accuracy while rarely considering fairness issues; for instance, the diagnosis of students may be affected by various sensitive attributes (e.g., region). In this paper, we aim to explore fairness in cognitive diagnosis and answer two questions: (1) Are the results of existing cognitive diagnosis models affected by sensitive attributes? (2) If yes, how can we mitigate the impact of sensitive attributes to ensure fair diagnosis results? To this end, we first empirically reveal that several well-known cognitive diagnosis methods usually lead to unfair performances, and the trend of unfairness varies among different cognitive diagnosis models. Then, we make a theoretical analysis to explain the reasons behind this phenomenon. To resolve the unfairness problem in existing cognitive diagnosis models, we propose a general fairness-aware cognitive diagnosis framework, FairCD. Our fundamental principle involves eliminating the effect of sensitive attributes on student proficiency. To achieve this, we divide student proficiency in existing cognitive diagnosis models into two components: bias proficiency and fair proficiency. We design two orthogonal tasks for each of them to ensure that fairness in proficiency remains independent of sensitive attributes and take it as the final diagnosed result. Extensive experiments on the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) dataset clearly show the effectiveness of our framework.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lord F. A theory of test scores. Psychometric Monographs, 1952, 7: 84

    Google Scholar 

  2. Liu Q, Huang Z, Yin Y, et al. EKT: exercise-aware knowledge tracing for student performance prediction. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng, 2019, 33: 100–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. de la Torre J. DINA model and parameter estimation: a didactic. J Educational Behaval Stat, 2009, 34: 115–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Templin J L, Henson R A. Measurement of psychological disorders using cognitive diagnosis models. Psychological Methods, 2006, 11: 287–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Leighton J P, Gierl M J, Hunka S M. The attribute hierarchy method for cognitive assessment: a variation on Tatsuoka’s rule-space approach. J Educational Measurement, 2004, 41: 205–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bi H, Ma H, Huang Z, et al. Quality meets diversity: a model-agnostic framework for computerized adaptive testing. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM), 2020. 42–51

  7. Huang Z, Liu Q, Zhai C, et al. Exploring multi-objective exercise recommendations in online education systems. In: Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, 2019. 1261–1270

  8. Reckase M D. Multidimensional Item Response Theory Models. Berlin: Springer, 2009. 79–112

    Google Scholar 

  9. von Davier M. The DINA model as a constrained general diagnostic model: two variants of a model equivalency. Brit J Math Statis, 2014, 67: 49–71

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Wang F, Liu Q, Chen E, et al. Neural cognitive diagnosis for intelligent education systems. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2020. 6153–6161

  11. Kizilcec R F, Lee H. Algorithmic fairness in education. 2020. ArXiv:2007.05443

  12. Pedreshi D, Ruggieri S, Turini F. Discrimination-aware data mining. In: Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 2008. 560–568

  13. Hardt M, Price E, Srebro N. Equality of opportunity in supervised learning. In: Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2016. 3323–3331

  14. Bose A, Hamilton W. Compositional fairness constraints for graph embeddings. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Machine Learning, 2019. 715–724

  15. Shao P Y, Wu L, Chen L, et al. FairCF: fairness-aware collaborative filtering. Sci China Inf Sci, 2022, 65: 222102

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  16. Wu L, Chen L, Shao P, et al. Learning fair representations for recommendation: a graph-based perspective. In: Proceedings of the Web Conference, 2021. 2198–2208

  17. Yao S, Huang B. Beyond parity: fairness objectives for collaborative filtering. In: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017. 2925–2934

  18. Lee M K, Rich K. Who is included in human perceptions of AI? Trust and perceived fairness around healthcare AI and cultural mistrust. In: Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2021. 1–14

  19. Goodfellow I, Pouget-Abadie J, Mirza M, et al. Generative adversarial networks. Commun ACM, 2020, 63: 139–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gao W, Liu Q, Huang Z, et al. RCD: relation map driven cognitive diagnosis for intelligent education systems. In: Proceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 2021. 501–510

  21. Rudner L M. Implementing the graduate management admission test computerized adaptive test. In: Proceedings of Elements of Adaptive Testing, 2009. 151–165

  22. Mills C N. The GRE computer adaptive test: operational issues. In: Proceedings of Computerized Adaptive Testing: Theory and Practice, 2000

  23. Zhuang Y, Liu Q, Huang Z, et al. A robust computerized adaptive testing approach in educational question retrieval. In: Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 2022. 416–426

  24. Zhuang Y, Liu Q, Ning Y, et al. Efficiently measuring the cognitive ability of LLMs: an adaptive testing perspective. 2023. ArXiv:2306.10512

  25. Gao W, Wang H, Liu Q, et al. Leveraging transferable knowledge concept graph embedding for cold-start cognitive diagnosis. In: Proceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 2023. 983–992

  26. Lin Z Q, Chen H X. Recommendation over time: a probabilistic model of time-aware recommender systems. Sci China Inf Sci, 2019, 62: 212105

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  27. McKinley R, Kingston N. Exploring the use of IRT equating for the GRE subject test in mathematics. ETS Res Report Ser, 1987, 1987: 1–35

    Google Scholar 

  28. Liu Q. Towards a new generation of cognitive diagnosis. In: Proceedings of the 30th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2021. 4961–4964

  29. Wang F, Liu Q, Chen E, et al. NeuralCD: a general framework for cognitive diagnosis. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng, 2023, 35: 8312–8327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ghosh A, Raspat J, Lan A. Option tracing: beyond correctness analysis in knowledge tracing. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, 2021. 137–149

  31. Cheng Y, Li M, Chen H, et al. Neural cognitive modeling based on the importance of knowledge point for student performance prediction. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Computer Science & Education, 2021. 495–499

  32. Wu J W, Shen L W, Guo W N, et al. Code recommendation for Android development: how does it work and what can be improved?. Sci China Inf Sci, 2017, 60: 092111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Chen H H, Jin H, Cui X L. Hybrid followee recommendation in microblogging systems. Sci China Inf Sci, 2017, 60: 012102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. He X, Liao L, Zhang H, et al. Neural collaborative filtering. In: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web, 2017. 173–182

  35. Huang H Y, Wang J Q, Fei C, et al. A probabilistic risk assessment framework considering lane-changing behavior interaction. Sci China Inf Sci, 2020, 63: 190203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Xiao S T, Shao Y X, Li Y W, et al. LECF: recommendation via learnable edge collaborative filtering. Sci China Inf Sci, 2022, 65: 112101

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  37. Hu H C, Guo Y F, Yi P, et al. Achieving fair service with a hybrid scheduling scheme for CICQ switches. Sci China Inf Sci, 2012, 55: 689–700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Ekstrand M D, Tian M, Azpiazu I M, et al. All the cool kids, how do they fit in? Popularity and demographic biases in recommender evaluation and effectiveness. In: Proceedings of Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency, 2018. 172–186

  39. Khademi A, Lee S, Foley D, et al. Fairness in algorithmic decision making: an excursion through the lens of causality. In: Proceedings of the Web Conference, 2019. 2907–2914

  40. Liu J H, Yu Y, Bi H L, et al. Post quantum secure fair data trading with deterability based on machine learning. Sci China Inf Sci, 2022, 65: 170308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Dwork C, Hardt M, Pitassi T, et al. Fairness through awareness. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference, 2012. 214–226

  42. Zafar M B, Valera I, Rogriguez M G, et al. Fairness constraints: mechanisms for fair classification. In: Proceedings of Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, 2017. 962–970

  43. Kang J, He J, Maciejewski R, et al. Inform: individual fairness on graph mining. In: Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, 2020. 379–389

  44. Calmon F, Wei D, Vinzamuri B, et al. Optimized pre-processing for discrimination prevention. In: Proceedings of Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017

  45. Dong Y, Kang J, Tong H, et al. Individual fairness for graph neural networks: a ranking based approach. In: Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, 2021. 300–310

  46. Li Y, Chen H, Fu Z, et al. User-oriented fairness in recommendation. In: Proceedings of the Web Conference, 2021. 624–632

  47. Simon F, Małgorzata K, Beatriz P. No more failures: ten steps to equity in education. OECD Publishing, 2007. doi: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264032606-en

  48. Rao Y S, Zhang J Z, Zou Y, et al. An advanced operating environment for mathematics education resources. Sci China Inf Sci, 2018, 61: 098102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Warren C J E. Brown v. Board of Education. United States Reports, 1954

  50. Hutt S, Gardner M, Duckworth A L, et al. Evaluating fairness and generalizability in models predicting on-time graduation from college applications. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Educational Data Mining (EDM 2019), 2019

  51. Hu Q, Rangwala H. Towards fair educational data mining: a case study on detecting at-risk students. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Educational Data Mining, 2020. 431–437

  52. Yu R, Li Q, Fischer C, et al. Towards accurate and fair prediction of college success: evaluating different sources of student data. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Educational Data Mining (EDM 2020), 2020

  53. Li C, Xing W, Leite W. Using fair AI to predict students’ math learning outcomes in an online platform. Interactive Learn Environ, 2022. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2115076

  54. Gómez E, Zhang C S, Boratto L, et al. The winner takes it all: geographic imbalance and provider (un) fairness in educational recommender systems. In: Proceedings of the 44th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 2021. 1808–1812

  55. Embretson S E. Item Response Theory. London: Psychology Press, 2013

    Book  Google Scholar 

  56. DiBello L V, Roussos L A, Stout W. 31a review of cognitively diagnostic assessment and a summary of psychometric models. Handbook of Statistics, 2006, 26: 979–1030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Glorot X, Bengio Y. Understanding the difficulty of training deep feedforward neural networks. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, 2010. 249–256

  58. Liu Q, Wu R, Chen E, et al. Fuzzy cognitive diagnosis for modelling examinee performance. ACM Trans Intell Syst Technol, 2018, 9: 1–26

    Google Scholar 

  59. Wu C, Wu F, Wang X, et al. Fairness-aware news recommendation with decomposed adversarial learning. In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2021. 4462–4469

  60. Chen J, Li H, Ding W, et al. An educational system for personalized teacher recommendation in K-12 online classrooms. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, 2021. 104–108

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by National Key Research and Development Program of China (Grant No. 2021YFF0901003), National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 61922073, U20A20229), and University Synergy Innovation Program of Anhui Province (Grant No. GXXT-2022-042).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Anhui Province Key Laboratory of Big Data Analysis and Application, School of Computer Science and Technology & School of Data Science, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, 230026, China

    Zheng Zhang, Qi Liu, Jiayu Liu, Zhenya Huang, Yu Yin, Yan Zhuang, Weibo Gao & Enhong Chen

  2. State Key Laboratory of Cognitive Intelligence, Hefei, 230088, China

    Zheng Zhang, Qi Liu, Jiayu Liu, Zhenya Huang, Yu Yin, Yan Zhuang, Weibo Gao & Enhong Chen

  3. School of Computer Science and Information Engineering, Hefei University of Technology, Hefei, 230601, China

    Le Wu

Authors
  1. Zheng Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Le Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Qi Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jiayu Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. Zhenya Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  6. Yu Yin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  7. Yan Zhuang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  8. Weibo Gao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  9. Enhong Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Qi Liu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhang, Z., Wu, L., Liu, Q. et al. Understanding and improving fairness in cognitive diagnosis. Sci. China Inf. Sci. 67, 152106 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11432-022-3852-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11432-022-3852-0

Keywords