As Biased as You Measure: Methodological Pitfalls of Bias Evaluations in Speaker Verification Research

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2408.13614v1
• Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2024 16:04:51 GMT
• Title: As Biased as You Measure: Methodological Pitfalls of Bias Evaluations in Speaker Verification Research
• Authors: Wiebke Hutiri, Tanvina Patel, Aaron Yi Ding, Odette Scharenborg,
• Abstract summary: We investigate how measurement impacts the outcomes of bias evaluations. We show that bias evaluations are strongly influenced by base metrics that measure performance. Based on our findings, we recommend the use of ratio-based bias measures.
• Score: 15.722009470067974
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Detecting and mitigating bias in speaker verification systems is important, as datasets, processing choices and algorithms can lead to performance differences that systematically favour some groups of people while disadvantaging others. Prior studies have thus measured performance differences across groups to evaluate bias. However, when comparing results across studies, it becomes apparent that they draw contradictory conclusions, hindering progress in this area. In this paper we investigate how measurement impacts the outcomes of bias evaluations. We show empirically that bias evaluations are strongly influenced by base metrics that measure performance, by the choice of ratio or difference-based bias measure, and by the aggregation of bias measures into meta-measures. Based on our findings, we recommend the use of ratio-based bias measures, in particular when the values of base metrics are small, or when base metrics with different orders of magnitude need to be compared.

Related papers

• Comprehensive Equity Index (CEI): Definition and Application to Bias Evaluation in Biometrics [47.762333925222926]
  We present a novel metric to quantify biased behaviors of machine learning models. We focus on and apply it to the operational evaluation of face recognition systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-03T14:19:38Z)
• When mitigating bias is unfair: multiplicity and arbitrariness in algorithmic group fairness [8.367620276482056]
  We introduce the FRAME (FaiRness Arbitrariness and Multiplicity Evaluation) framework, which evaluates bias mitigation through five dimensions. Applying FRAME to various bias mitigation approaches across key datasets allows us to exhibit significant differences in the behaviors of debiasing methods. These findings highlight the limitations of current fairness criteria and the inherent arbitrariness in the debiasing process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-14T16:53:52Z)
• Choose Your Lenses: Flaws in Gender Bias Evaluation [29.16221451643288]
  We assess the current paradigm of gender bias evaluation and identify several flaws in it. First, we highlight the importance of extrinsic bias metrics that measure how a model's performance on some task is affected by gender. Second, we find that datasets and metrics are often coupled, and discuss how their coupling hinders the ability to obtain reliable conclusions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-20T17:59:55Z)
• Systematic Evaluation of Predictive Fairness [60.0947291284978]
  Mitigating bias in training on biased datasets is an important open problem. We examine the performance of various debiasing methods across multiple tasks. We find that data conditions have a strong influence on relative model performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-17T05:40:13Z)
• Information-Theoretic Bias Reduction via Causal View of Spurious Correlation [71.9123886505321]
  We propose an information-theoretic bias measurement technique through a causal interpretation of spurious correlation. We present a novel debiasing framework against the algorithmic bias, which incorporates a bias regularization loss. The proposed bias measurement and debiasing approaches are validated in diverse realistic scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-10T01:19:31Z)
• Information-Theoretic Bias Assessment Of Learned Representations Of Pretrained Face Recognition [18.07966649678408]
  We propose an information-theoretic, independent bias assessment metric to identify degree of bias against protected demographic attributes. Our metric differs from other methods that rely on classification accuracy or examine the differences between ground truth and predicted labels of protected attributes predicted using a shallow network.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-08T17:41:17Z)
• Balancing out Bias: Achieving Fairness Through Training Reweighting [58.201275105195485]
  Bias in natural language processing arises from models learning characteristics of the author such as gender and race. Existing methods for mitigating and measuring bias do not directly account for correlations between author demographics and linguistic variables. This paper introduces a very simple but highly effective method for countering bias using instance reweighting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-16T23:40:28Z)
• Assessing the Reliability of Word Embedding Gender Bias Measures [4.258396452892244]
  We assess three types of reliability of word embedding gender bias measures, namely test-retest reliability, inter-rater consistency and internal consistency. Our findings inform better design of word embedding gender bias measures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-10T08:23:50Z)
• A Statistical Analysis of Summarization Evaluation Metrics using Resampling Methods [60.04142561088524]
  We find that the confidence intervals are rather wide, demonstrating high uncertainty in how reliable automatic metrics truly are. Although many metrics fail to show statistical improvements over ROUGE, two recent works, QAEval and BERTScore, do in some evaluation settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-31T18:28:14Z)
• Towards causal benchmarking of bias in face analysis algorithms [54.19499274513654]
  We develop an experimental method for measuring algorithmic bias of face analysis algorithms. Our proposed method is based on generating synthetic transects'' of matched sample images. We validate our method by comparing it to a study that employs the traditional observational method for analyzing bias in gender classification algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-13T17:10:34Z)

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.