Fairness Feedback Loops: Training on Synthetic Data Amplifies Bias
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Model-induced distribution shifts (MIDS) occur as previous model outputs pollute new model training sets over generations of models. This is known as model collapse in the case of generative models, and performative prediction or unfairness feedback loops for supervised models. When a model induces a distribution shift, it also encodes its mistakes, biases, and unfairnesses into the ground truth of its data ecosystem. We introduce a framework that allows us to track multiple MIDS over many generations, finding that they can lead to loss in performance, fairness, and minoritized group representation, even in initially unbiased datasets. Despite these negative consequences, we identify how models might be used for positive, intentional, interventions in their data ecosystems, providing redress for historical discrimination through a framework called algorithmic reparation (AR). We simulate AR interventions by curating representative training batches for stochastic gradient descent to demonstrate how AR can improve upon the unfairnesses of models and data ecosystems subject to other MIDS. Our work takes an important step towards identifying, mitigating, and taking accountability for the unfair feedback loops enabled by the idea that ML systems are inherently neutral and objective.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".