Balanced Data, Imbalanced Spectra: Unveiling Class Disparities with Spectral Imbalance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Classification models are expected to perform equally well for different classes, yet in practice, there are often large gaps in their performance. This issue of class bias is widely studied in cases of datasets with sample imbalance, but is relatively overlooked in balanced datasets. In this work, we introduce the concept of spectral imbalance in features as a potential source for class disparities and study the connections between spectral imbalance and class bias in both theory and practice. To build the connection between spectral imbalance and class gap, we develop a theoretical framework for studying class disparities and derive exact expressions for the per-class error in a high-dimensional mixture model setting. We then study this phenomenon in 11 different state-of-the-art pretrained encoders and show how our proposed framework can be used to compare the quality of encoders, as well as evaluate and combine data augmentation strategies to mitigate the issue. Our work sheds light on the class-dependent effects of learning, and provides new insights into how state-of-the-art pretrained features may have unknown biases that can be diagnosed through their spectra.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".