CoBA: Counterbias Text Augmentation for Mitigating Various Spurious Correlations via Semantic Triples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep learning models often learn and exploit spurious correlations in training data, using these non-target features to inform their predictions. Such reliance leads to performance degradation and poor generalization on unseen data. To address these limitations, we introduce a more general form of counterfactual data augmentation, termed counterbias data augmentation, which simultaneously tackles multiple biases (e.g., gender bias, simplicity bias) and enhances out-of-distribution robustness. We present CoBA: CounterBias Augmentation, a unified framework that operates at the semantic triple level: first decomposing text into subject-predicate-object triples, then selectively modifying these triples to disrupt spurious correlations. By reconstructing the text from these adjusted triples, CoBA generates counterbias data that mitigates spurious patterns. Through extensive experiments, we demonstrate that CoBA not only improves downstream task performance, but also effectively reduces biases and strengthens out-of-distribution resilience, offering a versatile and robust solution to the challenges posed by spurious correlations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
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".