Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Controlling Bias Exposure for Fair Interpretable Predictions

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2210.07455 v2 pith:JARHDIIN submitted 2022-10-14 cs.CL

Controlling Bias Exposure for Fair Interpretable Predictions

classification cs.CL
keywords informationbiassensitivetaskdebiasinggendertrade-offeliminating
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Recent work on reducing bias in NLP models usually focuses on protecting or isolating information related to a sensitive attribute (like gender or race). However, when sensitive information is semantically entangled with the task information of the input, e.g., gender information is predictive for a profession, a fair trade-off between task performance and bias mitigation is difficult to achieve. Existing approaches perform this trade-off by eliminating bias information from the latent space, lacking control over how much bias is necessarily required to be removed. We argue that a favorable debiasing method should use sensitive information 'fairly', rather than blindly eliminating it (Caliskan et al., 2017; Sun et al., 2019; Bogen et al., 2020). In this work, we provide a novel debiasing algorithm by adjusting the predictive model's belief to (1) ignore the sensitive information if it is not useful for the task; (2) use sensitive information minimally as necessary for the prediction (while also incurring a penalty). Experimental results on two text classification tasks (influenced by gender) and an open-ended generation task (influenced by race) indicate that our model achieves a desirable trade-off between debiasing and task performance along with producing debiased rationales as evidence.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.