A Fair Generative Model Using LeCam Divergence
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 explore a fairness-related challenge that arises in generative models. The challenge is that biased training data with imbalanced demographics may yield a high asymmetry in size of generated samples across distinct groups. We focus on practically-relevant scenarios wherein demographic labels are not available and therefore the design of a fair generative model is non-straightforward. In this paper, we propose an optimization framework that regulates the unfairness under such practical settings via one statistical measure, LeCam (LC)-divergence. Specifically to quantify the degree of unfairness, we employ a balanced-yet-small reference dataset and then measure its distance with generated samples using the LC-divergence, which is shown to be particularly instrumental to a small size of the reference dataset. We take a variational optimization approach to implement the LC-based measure. Experiments on benchmark real datasets demonstrate that the proposed framework can significantly improve the fairness performance while maintaining realistic sample quality for a wide range of the reference set size all the way down to 1% relative to training set.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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