A Critical Review of Predominant Bias in Neural Networks

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.11031v1
• Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 07:55:19 GMT
• Title: A Critical Review of Predominant Bias in Neural Networks
• Authors: Jiazhi Li, Mahyar Khayatkhoei, Jiageng Zhu, Hanchen Xie, Mohamed E. Hussein, Wael AbdAlmageed,
• Abstract summary: We find that there exists a persistent, extensive but under-explored confusion regarding these two types of biases. We aim to restore clarity by providing two mathematical definitions for these two predominant biases and leveraging these definitions to unify a comprehensive list of papers.
• Score: 19.555188118439883
• License:
• Abstract: Bias issues of neural networks garner significant attention along with its promising advancement. Among various bias issues, mitigating two predominant biases is crucial in advancing fair and trustworthy AI: (1) ensuring neural networks yields even performance across demographic groups, and (2) ensuring algorithmic decision-making does not rely on protected attributes. However, upon the investigation of \pc papers in the relevant literature, we find that there exists a persistent, extensive but under-explored confusion regarding these two types of biases. Furthermore, the confusion has already significantly hampered the clarity of the community and subsequent development of debiasing methodologies. Thus, in this work, we aim to restore clarity by providing two mathematical definitions for these two predominant biases and leveraging these definitions to unify a comprehensive list of papers. Next, we highlight the common phenomena and the possible reasons for the existing confusion. To alleviate the confusion, we provide extensive experiments on synthetic, census, and image datasets, to validate the distinct nature of these biases, distinguish their different real-world manifestations, and evaluate the effectiveness of a comprehensive list of bias assessment metrics in assessing the mitigation of these biases. Further, we compare these two types of biases from multiple dimensions including the underlying causes, debiasing methods, evaluation protocol, prevalent datasets, and future directions. Last, we provide several suggestions aiming to guide researchers engaged in bias-related work to avoid confusion and further enhance clarity in the community.

Related papers

• Survey of Bias In Text-to-Image Generation: Definition, Evaluation, and Mitigation [47.770531682802314]
  Even simple prompts could cause T2I models to exhibit conspicuous social bias in generated images. We present the first extensive survey on bias in T2I generative models. We discuss how these works define, evaluate, and mitigate different aspects of bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-01T10:19:05Z)
• Causality and Independence Enhancement for Biased Node Classification [56.38828085943763]
  We propose a novel Causality and Independence Enhancement (CIE) framework, applicable to various graph neural networks (GNNs) Our approach estimates causal and spurious features at the node representation level and mitigates the influence of spurious correlations. Our approach CIE not only significantly enhances the performance of GNNs but outperforms state-of-the-art debiased node classification methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-14T13:56:24Z)
• Targeted Data Augmentation for bias mitigation [0.0]
  We introduce a novel and efficient approach for addressing biases called Targeted Data Augmentation (TDA) Unlike the laborious task of removing biases, our method proposes to insert biases instead, resulting in improved performance. To identify biases, we annotated two diverse datasets: a dataset of clinical skin lesions and a dataset of male and female faces.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-22T12:25:49Z)
• 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)
• Discover and Mitigate Unknown Biases with Debiasing Alternate Networks [42.89260385194433]
  We propose Debiasing Alternate Networks (DebiAN), which comprises two networks -- a Discoverer and a classifier. DebiAN aims at unlearning the biases identified by the discoverer. While previous works evaluate debiasing results in terms of a single bias, we create Multi-Color MNIST dataset to better benchmark mitigation of multiple biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-20T17:59:51Z)
• Unsupervised Learning of Unbiased Visual Representations [12.690228982893]
  Deep neural networks often struggle to learn robust representations in the presence of dataset biases. Existing approaches to address this problem typically involve explicit supervision of bias attributes or reliance on prior knowledge about the biases. We present a fully unsupervised debiasing framework with three key steps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-26T10:51:50Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Learning from Failure: Training Debiased Classifier from Biased Classifier [76.52804102765931]
  We show that neural networks learn to rely on spurious correlation only when it is "easier" to learn than the desired knowledge. We propose a failure-based debiasing scheme by training a pair of neural networks simultaneously. Our method significantly improves the training of the network against various types of biases in both synthetic and real-world datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-06T07:20:29Z)

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.