TARA: Training and Representation Alteration for AI Fairness and Domain Generalization
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose a novel method for enforcing AI fairness with respect to protected or sensitive factors. This method uses a dual strategy performing training and representation alteration (TARA) for the mitigation of prominent causes of AI bias. It includes the use of representation learning alteration via adversarial independence to suppress the bias-inducing dependence of the data representation from protected factors and training set alteration via intelligent augmentation to address bias-causing data imbalance by using generative models that allow the fine control of sensitive factors related to underrepresented populations via domain adaptation and latent space manipulation. When testing our methods on image analytics, experiments demonstrate that TARA significantly or fully debiases baseline models while outperforming competing debiasing methods that have the same amount of information-for example, with (% overall accuracy, % accuracy gap) = (78.8, 0.5) versus the baseline method's score of (71.8, 10.5) for Eye-PACS, and (73.7, 11.8) versus (69.1, 21.7) for CelebA. Furthermore, recognizing certain limitations in current metrics used for assessing debiasing performance, we propose novel conjunctive debiasing metrics. Our experiments also demonstrate the ability of these novel metrics in assessing the Pareto efficiency of the proposed methods.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it