Revisiting the Importance of Amplifying Bias for Debiasing
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
In image classification, debiasing aims to train a classifier to be less susceptible to dataset bias, the strong correlation between peripheral attributes of data samples and a target class. For example, even if the frog class in the dataset mainly consists of frog images with a swamp background (i.e., bias aligned samples), a debiased classifier should be able to correctly classify a frog at a beach (i.e., bias conflicting samples). Recent debiasing approaches commonly use two components for debiasing, a biased model fB and a debiased model fD. fB is trained to focus on bias aligned samples (i.e., overfitted to the bias) while fD is mainly trained with bias conflicting samples by concentrating on samples which fB fails to learn, leading fD to be less susceptible to the dataset bias. While the state of the art debiasing techniques have aimed to better train fD, we focus on training fB, an overlooked component until now. Our empirical analysis reveals that removing the bias conflicting samples from the training set for fB is important for improving the debiasing performance of fD. This is due to the fact that the bias conflicting samples work as noisy samples for amplifying the bias for fB since those samples do not include the bias attribute. To this end, we propose a simple yet effective data sample selection method which removes the bias conflicting samples to construct a bias amplified dataset for training fB. Our data sample selection method can be directly applied to existing reweighting based debiasing approaches, obtaining consistent performance boost and achieving the state of the art performance on both synthetic and real-world datasets.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 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