Discovering and Mitigating Visual Biases Through Keyword Explanation
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
Addressing biases in computer vision models is crucial for real-world AI deployments. However, mitigating visual biases is challenging due to their unexplainable nature, often identified indirectly through visualization or sample statistics, which necessitates additional human supervision for interpretation. To tackle this issue, we propose the Bias-to-Text (B2T) framework, which interprets visual biases as keywords. Specifically, we extract common keywords from the captions of mispredicted images to identify potential biases in the model. We then validate these keywords by measuring their similarity to the mispredicted images using a vision-language scoring model. The keyword explanation form of visual bias offers several advantages, such as a clear group naming for bias discovery and a natural extension for debiasing using these group names. Our experiments demonstrate that B2T can identify known biases, such as gender bias in CelebA, background bias in Waterbirds, and distribution shifts in ImageNet-R/C. Additionally, B2T uncovers novel biases in larger datasets, such as Dollar Street and ImageNet. For example, we discovered a contextual bias between “bee” and “flower” in ImageNet. We also highlight various applications of B2T keywords, including debiased training, CLIP prompting, and model comparison. <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">1</sup><sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">1</sup>Code: https://github.com/alinlab/b2t
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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