Fairness and Bias in Multimodal AI: A Survey

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.19097v2
• Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2024 09:25:09 GMT
• Title: Fairness and Bias in Multimodal AI: A Survey
• Authors: Tosin Adewumi, Lama Alkhaled, Namrata Gurung, Goya van Boven, Irene Pagliai,
• Abstract summary: The importance of addressing fairness and bias in artificial intelligence (AI) systems cannot be over-emphasized. We fill a gap with regards to the relatively minimal study of fairness and bias in Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) compared to Large Language Models (LLMs) We provide 50 examples of datasets and models related to both types of AI along with the challenges of bias affecting them.
• Score: 0.20971479389679337
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The importance of addressing fairness and bias in artificial intelligence (AI) systems cannot be over-emphasized. Mainstream media has been awashed with news of incidents around stereotypes and other types of bias in many of these systems in recent years. In this survey, we fill a gap with regards to the relatively minimal study of fairness and bias in Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) compared to Large Language Models (LLMs), providing 50 examples of datasets and models related to both types of AI along with the challenges of bias affecting them. We discuss the less-mentioned category of mitigating bias, preprocessing (with particular attention on the first part of it, which we call preuse). The method is less-mentioned compared to the two well-known ones in the literature: intrinsic and extrinsic mitigation methods. We critically discuss the various ways researchers are addressing these challenges. Our method involved two slightly different search queries on two reputable search engines, Google Scholar and Web of Science (WoS), which revealed that for the queries 'Fairness and bias in Large Multimodal Models' and 'Fairness and bias in Large Language Models', 33,400 and 538,000 links are the initial results, respectively, for Scholar while 4 and 50 links are the initial results, respectively, for WoS. For reproducibility and verification, we provide links to the search results and the citations to all the final reviewed papers. We believe this work contributes to filling this gap and providing insight to researchers and other stakeholders on ways to address the challenges of fairness and bias in multimodal and language AI.

Related papers

• Investigating Implicit Bias in Large Language Models: A Large-Scale Study of Over 50 LLMs [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are being adopted across a wide range of tasks. Recent research indicates that LLMs can harbor implicit biases even when they pass explicit bias evaluations. This study highlights that newer or larger language models do not automatically exhibit reduced bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-13T03:43:18Z)
• VLBiasBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating Bias in Large Vision-Language Model [72.13121434085116]
  VLBiasBench is a benchmark aimed at evaluating biases in Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) We construct a dataset encompassing nine distinct categories of social biases, including age, disability status, gender, nationality, physical appearance, race, religion, profession, social economic status and two intersectional bias categories (race x gender, and race x social economic status) We conduct extensive evaluations on 15 open-source models as well as one advanced closed-source model, providing some new insights into the biases revealing from these models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T10:56:59Z)
• The Pursuit of Fairness in Artificial Intelligence Models: A Survey [2.124791625488617]
  This survey offers a synopsis of the different ways researchers have promoted fairness in AI systems. A thorough study is conducted of the approaches and techniques employed by researchers to mitigate bias in AI models. We also delve into the impact of biased models on user experience and the ethical considerations to contemplate when developing and deploying such models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-26T02:33:36Z)
• 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)
• Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey [73.87651986156006]
  We present a comprehensive survey of bias evaluation and mitigation techniques for large language models (LLMs) We first consolidate, formalize, and expand notions of social bias and fairness in natural language processing. We then unify the literature by proposing three intuitive, two for bias evaluation, and one for mitigation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-02T00:32:55Z)
• Fair Enough: Standardizing Evaluation and Model Selection for Fairness Research in NLP [64.45845091719002]
  Modern NLP systems exhibit a range of biases, which a growing literature on model debiasing attempts to correct. This paper seeks to clarify the current situation and plot a course for meaningful progress in fair learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-11T14:54:00Z)
• Debiasing Methods for Fairer Neural Models in Vision and Language Research: A Survey [3.4767443062432326]
  We provide an in-depth overview of the main debiasing methods for fairness-aware neural networks. We propose a novel taxonomy to better organize the literature on debiasing methods for fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-10T14:42:46Z)
• Bias and Fairness on Multimodal Emotion Detection Algorithms [0.0]
  We study how multimodal approaches affect system bias and fairness. We find that text alone has the least bias, and accounts for the majority of the models' performances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-11T20:03:25Z)
• The SAME score: Improved cosine based bias score for word embeddings [49.75878234192369]
  We introduce SAME, a novel bias score for semantic bias in embeddings. We show that SAME is capable of measuring semantic bias and identify potential causes for social bias in downstream tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-28T09:28:13Z)
• Measure Twice, Cut Once: Quantifying Bias and Fairness in Deep Neural Networks [7.763173131630868]
  We propose two metrics to quantitatively evaluate the class-wise bias of two models in comparison to one another. By evaluating the performance of these new metrics and by demonstrating their practical application, we show that they can be used to measure fairness as well as bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-08T22:35:34Z)
• UnQovering Stereotyping Biases via Underspecified Questions [68.81749777034409]
  We present UNQOVER, a framework to probe and quantify biases through underspecified questions. We show that a naive use of model scores can lead to incorrect bias estimates due to two forms of reasoning errors. We use this metric to analyze four important classes of stereotypes: gender, nationality, ethnicity, and religion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-06T01:49:52Z)

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.