Mitigating Gender Bias in Captioning Systems
Open accessAbstract
Image captioning has made substantial progress with huge supporting image collections sourced from the web. However, recent studies have pointed out that captioning datasets, such as COCO, contain gender bias found in web corpora. As a result, learning models could heavily rely on the learned priors and image context for gender identification, leading to incorrect or even offensive errors. To encourage models to learn correct gender features, we reorganize the COCO dataset and present two new splits COCO-GB V1 and V2 datasets where the train and test sets have different gender-context joint distribution. Models relying on contextual cues will suffer from huge gender prediction errors on the anti-stereotypical test data. Benchmarking experiments reveal that most captioning models learn gender bias, leading to high gender prediction errors, especially for women. To alleviate the unwanted bias, we propose a new Guided Attention Image Captioning model (GAIC) which provides self-guidance on visual attention to encourage the model to capture correct gender visual evidence. Experimental results validate that GAIC can significantly reduce gender prediction errors with a competitive caption quality. Our codes and the designed benchmark datasets are available at https://github.com/datamllab/Mitigating_Gender_Bias_In_Captioning_System.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The shortcut learning problem has been observed in various natural language understanding tasks under the pretraining and fine-tuning paradigm, where models heavily rely on spurious correlations between input and labels in the fine-tuning data for prediction.
“The shortcut learning problem has been observed in various natural language understanding tasks under the pretraining and fine-tuning paradigm, where models heavily rely on spurious correlations between input and labels in the fine-tuning data for prediction [35,39,107,109,128,129].”
From Harnessing the power of llms in practice: a survey on chatGPT and beyond (2024) · cites this paper as [107]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 51 · Cited by 50
- Authors
- Tang, R., Du, M., Li, Y., Liu, Z., Zou, N., & Hu, X.
- Affiliations
- Texas A&M University (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2021-04-19
- Pages
- 633-645
- OpenAlex
- W3153332739
- Cited by
- 50
- References
- 51
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 2
- FWCI
- 3.17
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (1939716, 1900990)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
- Keywords
- gender bias, image captioning, COCO dataset, bias mitigation, visual attention
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