Cited by 22Ethics and Social Impacts of AIDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)

An Investigation of Critical Issues in Bias Mitigation Techniques

Shrestha, Robik, Kafle, Kushal, Kanan, Christopher·2022·2022 IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV)

Abstract

A critical problem in deep learning is that systems learn inappropriate biases, resulting in their inability to perform well on minority groups. This has led to the creation of multiple algorithms that endeavor to mitigate bias. However, it is not clear how effective these methods are. This is because study protocols differ among papers, systems are tested on datasets that fail to test many forms of bias, and systems have access to hidden knowledge or are tuned specifically to the test set. To address this, we introduce an improved evaluation protocol, sensible metrics, and a new dataset, which enables us to ask and answer critical questions about bias mitigation algorithms. We evaluate seven state-of-the-art algorithms using the same network architecture and hyperparameter selection policy across three benchmark datasets. We introduce a new dataset called Biased MNIST that enables assessment of robustness to multiple bias sources. We use Biased MNIST and a visual question answering (VQA) benchmark to assess robustness to hidden biases. Rather than only tuning to the test set distribution, we study robustness across different tuning distributions, which is critical because for many applications the test distribution may not be known during development. We find that algorithms exploit hidden biases, are unable to scale to multiple forms of bias, and are highly sensitive to the choice of tuning set. Based on our findings, we implore the community to adopt more rigorous assessment of future bias mitigation methods. All data, code, and results are publicly available1.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/wacv51458.2022.00257

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shrestha, R., Kafle, K., & Kanan, C.
Affiliations
  • Rochester Institute of Technology (US)
  • Adobe Systems (United States) (US)
Venue
2022 IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2022-01
Pages
2512-2523
ISSN
2472-6737 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3141609294
Cited by
22
References
70
Citations by year
2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1
FWCI
5.22
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Keywords
bias mitigation, algorithmic fairness, deep learning, evaluation protocol, hidden biases, visual question answering, benchmark dataset, minority groups

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review