Debiasing Skin Lesion Datasets and Models? Not So Fast

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2004.11457v1
• Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 21:07:49 GMT
• Title: Debiasing Skin Lesion Datasets and Models? Not So Fast
• Authors: Alceu Bissoto, Eduardo Valle, Sandra Avila
• Abstract summary: Models learned from data risk learning biases from that same data. When models learn spurious correlations not found in real-world situations, their deployment for critical tasks, such as medical decisions, can be catastrophic. We find out that, despite interesting results that point to promising future research, current debiasing methods are not ready to solve the bias issue for skin-lesion models.
• Score: 17.668005682385175
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Data-driven models are now deployed in a plethora of real-world applications - including automated diagnosis - but models learned from data risk learning biases from that same data. When models learn spurious correlations not found in real-world situations, their deployment for critical tasks, such as medical decisions, can be catastrophic. In this work we address this issue for skin-lesion classification models, with two objectives: finding out what are the spurious correlations exploited by biased networks, and debiasing the models by removing such spurious correlations from them. We perform a systematic integrated analysis of 7 visual artifacts (which are possible sources of biases exploitable by networks), employ a state-of-the-art technique to prevent the models from learning spurious correlations, and propose datasets to test models for the presence of bias. We find out that, despite interesting results that point to promising future research, current debiasing methods are not ready to solve the bias issue for skin-lesion models.

Related papers

• Looking at Model Debiasing through the Lens of Anomaly Detection [11.113718994341733]
  Deep neural networks are sensitive to bias in the data. We propose a new bias identification method based on anomaly detection. We reach state-of-the-art performance on synthetic and real benchmark datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-24T17:30:21Z)
• Fast Model Debias with Machine Unlearning [54.32026474971696]
  Deep neural networks might behave in a biased manner in many real-world scenarios. Existing debiasing methods suffer from high costs in bias labeling or model re-training. We propose a fast model debiasing framework (FMD) which offers an efficient approach to identify, evaluate and remove biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-19T08:10:57Z)
• Stubborn Lexical Bias in Data and Models [50.79738900885665]
  We use a new statistical method to examine whether spurious patterns in data appear in models trained on the data. We apply an optimization approach to *reweight* the training data, reducing thousands of spurious correlations. Surprisingly, though this method can successfully reduce lexical biases in the training data, we still find strong evidence of corresponding bias in the trained models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-03T20:12:27Z)
• Fighting Bias with Bias: Promoting Model Robustness by Amplifying Dataset Biases [5.997909991352044]
  Recent work sought to develop robust, unbiased models by filtering biased examples from training sets. We argue that such filtering can obscure the true capabilities of models to overcome biases. We introduce an evaluation framework defined by a bias-amplified training set and an anti-biased test set.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-30T10:10:42Z)
• Debiasing Vision-Language Models via Biased Prompts [79.04467131711775]
  We propose a general approach for debiasing vision-language foundation models by projecting out biased directions in the text embedding. We show that debiasing only the text embedding with a calibrated projection matrix suffices to yield robust classifiers and fair generative models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-31T20:09:33Z)
• On the Efficacy of Adversarial Data Collection for Question Answering: Results from a Large-Scale Randomized Study [65.17429512679695]
  In adversarial data collection (ADC), a human workforce interacts with a model in real time, attempting to produce examples that elicit incorrect predictions. Despite ADC's intuitive appeal, it remains unclear when training on adversarial datasets produces more robust models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-02T00:48:33Z)
• Hidden Biases in Unreliable News Detection Datasets [60.71991809782698]
  We show that selection bias during data collection leads to undesired artifacts in the datasets. We observed a significant drop (>10%) in accuracy for all models tested in a clean split with no train/test source overlap. We suggest future dataset creation include a simple model as a difficulty/bias probe and future model development use a clean non-overlapping site and date split.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-20T17:16:41Z)
• Learning from others' mistakes: Avoiding dataset biases without modeling them [111.17078939377313]
  State-of-the-art natural language processing (NLP) models often learn to model dataset biases and surface form correlations instead of features that target the intended task. Previous work has demonstrated effective methods to circumvent these issues when knowledge of the bias is available. We show a method for training models that learn to ignore these problematic correlations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-02T16:10:54Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.