Deep Learning on a Healthy Data Diet: Finding Important Examples for Fairness
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
Data-driven predictive solutions predominant in commercial applications tend to suffer from biases and stereotypes, which raises equity concerns. Prediction models may discover, use, or amplify spurious correlations based on gender or other protected personal characteristics, thus discriminating against marginalized groups. Mitigating gender bias has become an important research focus in natural language processing (NLP) and is an area where annotated corpora are available. Data augmentation reduces gender bias by adding counterfactual examples to the training dataset. In this work, we show that some of the examples in the augmented dataset can be not important or even harmful to fairness. We hence propose a general method for pruning both the factual and counterfactual examples to maximize the model’s fairness as measured by the demographic parity, equality of opportunity, and equality of odds. The fairness achieved by our method surpasses that of data augmentation on three text classification datasets, using no more than half of the examples in the augmented dataset. Our experiments are conducted using models of varying sizes and pre-training settings. WARNING: This work uses language that is offensive in nature.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.004 | 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