MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7126407450 · doi:10.21428/594757db.df69c52e

Diminishing Simplicity Bias using GAN Generated UnbiasedAugmentations

2024· article· en· W7126407450 on OpenAlexaff
Anshul Verma, Shehroz S. Khan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpurious relationshipRobustness (evolution)SimplicityArtificial neural networkSet (abstract data type)Selection biasAdversarial systemFeature (linguistics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Simplicity Bias (SB) characterizes the propensity of neural networks (NN) to excessively favor simpler features, while neglecting potentially informative complex features. This bias hinders a network's capacity to generalize effectively, contributing to reduced robustness outside of distributions (OOD). The challenge arises as more intricate features are prone to being overshadowed by simpler features, leading to feature selection bias and spurious correlation. These spurious correlations can give an inflated view of the model's performance on a test set is good, but the model may be sub-optimal and non-robust because of its over reliance on simple features. In this paper, we investigate the adverse effects of SB on both robustness and model generalization. To address this issue, we introduce a Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) designed to generate unbiased examples by deceiving the original NN exhibiting SB. We demonstrate that the incorporation of these generated unbiased examples encourages learning from complex features previously overlooked by the biased model. Our approach hinges on leveraging models exhibiting SB, and we substantiate its efficacy through controlled datasets showcasing SB. We used four datasets in this paper and show that our approach is effective in mitigating SB across all four datasets.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.749
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.190
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.171 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)French-language works237,207