Cited by 41Ethics and Social Impacts of AIExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection

Measuring Representational Harms in Image Captioning

Open access
Wang, Angelina, Barocas, Solon, Laird, Kristen, Wallach, Hanna·2022·2022 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency

Abstract

Previous work has largely considered the fairness of image captioning systems through the underspecified lens of “bias.” In contrast, we present a set of techniques for measuring five types of representational harms, as well as the resulting measurements obtained for two of the most popular image captioning datasets using a state-of-the-art image captioning system. Our goal was not to audit this image captioning system, but rather to develop normatively grounded measurement techniques, in turn providing an opportunity to reflect on the many challenges involved. We propose multiple measurement techniques for each type of harm. We argue that by doing so, we are better able to capture the multi-faceted nature of each type of harm, in turn improving the (collective) validity of the resulting measurements. Throughout, we discuss the assumptions underlying our measurement approach and point out when they do not hold.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3531146.3533099

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Existing research predominantly focuses on understanding, defining or evaluating representational 'harms' and often uses poor AI-generated images to elicit feedback from marginalized communities.

    “Our approach to defining and evaluating 'good' representation differs from existing research that predominantly focuses on understanding, defining or evaluating representational 'harms' [24, 28, 38, 44, 67, 77, 91, 116] and often uses poor AI-generated images to elicit feedback from marginalized communities (e.g., [65, 77, 79]).”

    From Engaging Communities Meaningfully in Defining Disability Representation for AI Image Generation (2026) · cites this paper as [116]

    The Introduction and §5.1 describe the paper’s aim as developing techniques to measure representational harms in image captioning, supporting its inclusion among research focused on harms. The methods use system-generated captions, while §5.1 proposes incorporating affected people’s lived experiences as future work. The paper does not support the claim that it used poor AI-generated images to elicit feedback from marginalized communities. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 37

  1. Mohsan Alvi, Andrew Zisserman, and Christoffer Nellaker. 2018. Turning a Blind Eye: Explicit Removal of Biases and Variation from Deep Neural Network Embeddings. Workshop on Bias Estimation in Face Analytics at ECCV 2018 (2018).
  2. Peter Anderson, Basura Fernando, Mark Johnson, and Stephen Gould. 2016. SPICE: Semantic Propositional Image Caption Evaluation. European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) (2016).
  3. Peter Anderson, Xiaodong He, Chris Buehler, Damien Teney, Mark Johnson, Stephen Gould, and Lei Zhang. 2018. Bottom-Up and Top-Down Attention for Image Captioning and Visual Question Answering. IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2018).
  4. Pinar Barlas, Kyriakos Kyriakou, Olivia Guest, Styliani Kleanthous, and Jahna Otterbacher. 2020. To "See" is to Stereotype. ACM Conference on Computer- Supported Cooperative Work And Social Computing (CSCW) (2020).
  5. Pinar Barlas, Kyriakos Kyriakou, Styliani Kleanthous, and Jahna Otterbacher. 2021. Person, Human, Neither: The Dehumanization Potential of Automated Image Tagging. AAAI/ACM Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Ethics, and Society (AIES) (2021).
  6. Solon Barocas, Kate Crawford, Aaron Shapiro, and Hanna Wallach. 2017. The Problem With Bias: Allocative Versus Representational Harms in Machine Learn- ing. In Proceedings of SIGCIS. Philadelphia, PA.
  7. Shruti Bhargava and David Forsyth. 2019. Exposing and Correcting the Gender Bias in Image Captioning Datasets and Models. arXiv:1912.00578 (2019). · arXiv
  8. Steven Bird, Ewan Klein, and Edward Loper. 2009. Natural Language Processing with Python. O'Reilly Media Inc. (2009).
  9. Abeba Birhane, Vinay Uday Prabhu, and Emmanuel Kahembwe. 2021. Multimodal datasets: misogyny, pornography, and malignant stereotypes. arXiv:2110.01963 (2021). · arXiv
  10. Su Lin Blodgett, Solon Barocas, Hal Daume III, and Hanna Wallach. 2020. Lan- guage (Technology) is Power: A Critical Survey of "Bias" in NLP. Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) (2020).
  11. Joy Buolamwini and Timnit Gebru. 2018. Gender Shades: Intersectional Accu- racy Disparities in Commercial Gender Classification. Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency (FAccT) (2018).
  12. Xinlei Chen, Hao Fang, Tsung-Yi Lin, Ramakrishna Vedantam, Saurabh Gupta, Piotr Dollár, and C. Lawrence Zitnick. 2015. Microsoft coco captions: Data collection and evaluation server. arXiv preprint arXiv:1504.00325 (2015). · arXiv
  13. Terrance DeVries, Ishan Misra, Changhan Wang, and Laurens van der Maaten. 2019. Does Object Recognition Work for Everyone? Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW) (2019).
  14. Jesse Dodge, Maarten Sap, Ana Marasović, William Agnew, Gabriel Ilharco, Dirk Groeneveld, Margaret Mitchell, and Matt Gardner. 2021. Documenting Large Webtext Corpora: A Case Study on the Colossal Clean Crawled Corpus. Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (2021).
  15. Xiaotian Han, Jianwei Yang, Houdong Hu, Lei Zhang, Jianfeng Gao, and Pengchuan Zhang. 2021. Image Scene Graph Generation (SGG) Benchmark. arXiv:2107.12604 [cs.CV] · arXiv
  16. Jared Katzman, Solon Barocas, Su Lin Blodgett, Kristen Laird, Morgan Klaus Scheuerman, and Hanna Wallach. 2021. Representational Harms in Image Tagging. Beyond Fair Computer Vision Workshop at CVPR 2021 (2021). https: //drive.google.com/file/d/1oJp8CqNpYEsOlO8cwv4cTnHGbOjWxEZ-/view
  17. Ranjay Krishna, Yuke Zhu, Oliver Groth, Justin Johnson, Kenji Hata, Joshua Kravitz, Stephanie Chen, Yannis Kalantidis, Li-Jia Li, David A Shamma, Michael Bernstein, and Li Fei-Fei. 2016. Visual Genome: Connecting Language and Vision Using Crowdsourced Dense Image Annotations. https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.07332 · arXiv
  18. Xiujun Li, Xi Yin, Chunyuan Li, Pengchuan Zhang, Xiaowei Hu, Lei Zhang, Lijuan Wang, Houdong Hu, Li Dong, Furu Wei, Yejin Choi, and Jianfeng Gao. 2020. Oscar: Object-Semantics Aligned Pre-training for Vision-Language Tasks. European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) (2020).
  19. Chenxi Liu, Junhua Mao, Fei Sha, and Alan Yuille. 2017. Attention Correctness in Neural Image Captioning. AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-17) (2017).
  20. Kelly Mack, Edward Cutrell, Bongshin Lee, and Meredith Ringel Morris. 2021. Designing Tools for High-Quality Alt Text Authoring. International ACM SIGAC- CESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS) (2021).
  21. Haley MacLeod, Cynthia L. Bennett, Meredith Ringel Morris, and Edward Cutrell. 2017. Understanding Blind People's Experiences with Computer-Generated Captions of Social Media Images. ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) (2017).
  22. Jahna Otterbacher, Pınar Barlas, Styliani Kleanthous, and Kyriakos Kyriakou. 2019. How Do We Talk about Other People? Group (Un)Fairness in Natural Language Image Descriptions. The Seventh AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing (HCOMP-19) (2019).
  23. Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. 2002. BLEU: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. Association for Compu- tational Linguistics (ACL) (2002).
  24. Morgan Klaus Scheuerman, Aaron Jiang, Katta Spiel, and Jed R. Brubaker. 2021. Revisiting Gendered Web Forms: An Evaluation of Gender Inputs with (Non- )Binary People. ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) (2021).
  25. Morgan Klaus Scheuerman, Kandrea Wade, Caitlin Lustig, and Jed R. Brubaker. 2020. How We've Taught Algorithms to See Identity: Constructing Race and Gender in Image Databases for Facial Analysis. ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) (2020).
  26. Gun R. Semin and Klaus Fiedler. 1988. The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (1988).
  27. Abigale Stangl, Meredith Ringel Morris, and Danna Gurari. 2020. "Person, Shoes, Tree. Is the Person Naked?" What People with Vision Impairments Want in Image Descriptions. ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) (2020).
  28. Kaihua Tang, Jianqiang Huang, and Hanwang Zhang. 2020. Long-Tailed Classifi- cation by Keeping the Good and Removing the Bad Momentum Causal Effect. Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) (2020).
  29. Ruixiang Tang, Mengnan Du, Yuening Li, Zirui Liu, and Xia Hu. 2020. Mitigating Gender Bias in Captioning Systems. arXiv:2006.08315 (2020). · arXiv
  30. Emiel van Miltenburg. 2016. Stereotyping and Bias in the Flickr30K Dataset. Proceedings of the Workshop on Multimodal Corpora (MMC) (2016).
  31. Emiel van Miltenburg, Desmond Elliott, and Piek Vossen. 2018. Measuring the Diversity of Automatic Image Descriptions. International Conference on Computational Linguistics (2018).
  32. Oriol Vinyals, Alexander Toshev, Samy Bengio, and Dumitru Erhan. 2015. Show and Tell: A Neural Image Caption Generator. IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2015).
  33. Angelina Wang, Arvind Narayanan, and Olga Russakovsky. 2020. REVISE: A Tool for Measuring and Mitigating Bias in Visual Datasets. European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) (2020).
  34. Tianlu Wang, Jieyu Zhao, Mark Yatskar, Kai-Wei Chang, and Vicente Ordonez. 2019. Balanced Datasets Are Not Enough: Estimating and Mitigating Gender Bias in Deep Image Representations. International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) (2019).
  35. Benjamin Wilson, Judy Hoffman, and Jamie Morgenstern. 2019. Predictive In- equity in Object Detection. arXiv:1902.11097 (2019). · arXiv
  36. Quanzeng You, Hailin Jin, Zhaowen Wang, Chen Fang, and Jiebo Luo. 2016. Image Captioning with Semantic Attention. IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) (2016).
  37. Dora Zhao, Angelina Wang, and Olga Russakovsky. 2021. Understanding and Evaluating Racial Biases in Image Captioning. International Conference on Com- puter Vision (ICCV) (2021).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wang, A., Barocas, S., Laird, K., & Wallach, H.
Affiliations
  • Princeton University (US)
  • Microsoft (United States) (US)
Venue
2022 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency
Publisher
ACM
Published
2022-06-20
Pages
324-335
OpenAlex
W4283028305
Cited by
40
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 1
FWCI
9.44
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (2039656)
  • Microsoft Research
  • Microsoft
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
Keywords
image captioning, representational harm, algorithmic fairness, bias measurement, fairness metrics, measurement validity

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