Textual Data Bias Detection and Mitigation -- An Extensible Pipeline with Experimental Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.10734v2
• Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2025 08:06:13 GMT
• Title: Textual Data Bias Detection and Mitigation -- An Extensible Pipeline with Experimental Evaluation
• Authors: Rebekka Görge, Sujan Sai Gannamaneni, Tabea Naeven, Hammam Abdelwahab, Héctor Allende-Cid, Armin B. Cremers, Lennard Helmer, Michael Mock, Anna Schmitz, Songkai Xue, Elif Yildirir, Maximilian Poretschkin, Stefan Wrobel,
• Abstract summary: The European AI Act requires identifying and mitigating biases against protected groups in data.<n>We propose a comprehensive data bias detection and mitigation pipeline comprising four components.<n>We successfully reduce representation bias and (explicit) stereotypes in a text dataset.<n>This evaluation reveals that LLMs fine-tuned on debiased data do not consistently show improved performance on bias benchmarks.
• Score: 7.217310710037882
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Textual data used to train large language models (LLMs) exhibits multifaceted bias manifestations encompassing harmful language and skewed demographic distributions. Regulations such as the European AI Act require identifying and mitigating biases against protected groups in data, with the ultimate goal of preventing unfair model outputs. However, practical guidance and operationalization are lacking. We propose a comprehensive data bias detection and mitigation pipeline comprising four components that address two data bias types, namely representation bias and (explicit) stereotypes for a configurable sensitive attribute. First, we leverage LLM-generated word lists created based on quality criteria to detect relevant group labels. Second, representation bias is quantified using the Demographic Representation Score. Third, we detect and mitigate stereotypes using sociolinguistically informed filtering. Finally, we compensate representation bias through Grammar- and Context-Aware Counterfactual Data Augmentation. We conduct a two-fold evaluation using the examples of gender, religion and age. First, the effectiveness of each individual component on data debiasing is evaluated through human validation and baseline comparison. The findings demonstrate that we successfully reduce representation bias and (explicit) stereotypes in a text dataset. Second, the effect of data debiasing on model bias reduction is evaluated by bias benchmarking of several models (0.6B-8B parameters), fine-tuned on the debiased text dataset. This evaluation reveals that LLMs fine-tuned on debiased data do not consistently show improved performance on bias benchmarks, exposing critical gaps in current evaluation methodologies and highlighting the need for targeted data manipulation to address manifested model bias.

Related papers

• To Bias or Not to Bias: Detecting bias in News with bias-detector [1.8024397171920885]
  We perform sentence-level bias classification by fine-tuning a RoBERTa-based model on the expert-annotated BABE dataset.<n>We show statistically significant improvements in performance when comparing our model to a domain-adaptively pre-trained DA-RoBERTa baseline.<n>Our findings contribute to building more robust, explainable, and socially responsible NLP systems for media bias detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-19T11:54:39Z)
• How far can bias go? -- Tracing bias from pretraining data to alignment [54.51310112013655]
  This study examines the correlation between gender-occupation bias in pre-training data and their manifestation in LLMs.<n>Our findings reveal that biases present in pre-training data are amplified in model outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-28T16:20:25Z)
• debiaSAE: Benchmarking and Mitigating Vision-Language Model Bias [1.3995965887921709]
  We analyze demographic biases across five models and six datasets.<n>Portrait datasets like UTKFace and CelebA are the best tools for bias detection.<n>Our debiasing method improves fairness, gaining 5-15 points in performance over the baseline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-17T02:03:27Z)
• COBIAS: Assessing the Contextual Reliability of Bias Benchmarks for Language Models [14.594920595573038]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) often inherit biases from the web data they are trained on, which contains stereotypes and prejudices.<n>Current methods for evaluating and mitigating these biases rely on bias-benchmark datasets.<n>We introduce a contextual reliability framework, which evaluates model robustness to biased statements by considering the various contexts in which they may appear.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-22T10:46:11Z)
• The Impact of Debiasing on the Performance of Language Models in Downstream Tasks is Underestimated [70.23064111640132]
  We compare the impact of debiasing on performance across multiple downstream tasks using a wide-range of benchmark datasets. Experiments show that the effects of debiasing are consistently emphunderestimated across all tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-16T20:25:34Z)
• NBIAS: A Natural Language Processing Framework for Bias Identification in Text [9.486702261615166]
  Bias in textual data can lead to skewed interpretations and outcomes when the data is used. An algorithm trained on biased data may end up making decisions that disproportionately impact a certain group of people. We develop a comprehensive framework NBIAS that consists of four main layers: data, corpus construction, model development and an evaluation layer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-03T10:48:30Z)
• On Comparing Fair Classifiers under Data Bias [42.43344286660331]
  We study the effect of varying data biases on the accuracy and fairness of fair classifiers. Our experiments show how to integrate a measure of data bias risk in the existing fairness dashboards for real-world deployments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-12T13:04:46Z)
• 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)
• D-BIAS: A Causality-Based Human-in-the-Loop System for Tackling Algorithmic Bias [57.87117733071416]
  We propose D-BIAS, a visual interactive tool that embodies human-in-the-loop AI approach for auditing and mitigating social biases. A user can detect the presence of bias against a group by identifying unfair causal relationships in the causal network. For each interaction, say weakening/deleting a biased causal edge, the system uses a novel method to simulate a new (debiased) dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-10T03:41:48Z)
• 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)
• Learning Debiased Representation via Disentangled Feature Augmentation [19.348340314001756]
  This paper presents an empirical analysis revealing that training with "diverse" bias-conflicting samples is crucial for debiasing. We propose a novel feature-level data augmentation technique in order to synthesize diverse bias-conflicting samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-03T08:03:25Z)
• Towards Robustifying NLI Models Against Lexical Dataset Biases [94.79704960296108]
  This paper explores both data-level and model-level debiasing methods to robustify models against lexical dataset biases. First, we debias the dataset through data augmentation and enhancement, but show that the model bias cannot be fully removed via this method. The second approach employs a bag-of-words sub-model to capture the features that are likely to exploit the bias and prevents the original model from learning these biased features.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-10T17:56:10Z)

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.