REVIEW 1 cited by
Does Robustness Improve Fairness? Approaching Fairness with Word Substitution Robustness Methods for Text Classification
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
read the original abstract
Existing bias mitigation methods to reduce disparities in model outcomes across cohorts have focused on data augmentation, debiasing model embeddings, or adding fairness-based optimization objectives during training. Separately, certified word substitution robustness methods have been developed to decrease the impact of spurious features and synonym substitutions on model predictions. While their end goals are different, they both aim to encourage models to make the same prediction for certain changes in the input. In this paper, we investigate the utility of certified word substitution robustness methods to improve equality of odds and equality of opportunity on multiple text classification tasks. We observe that certified robustness methods improve fairness, and using both robustness and bias mitigation methods in training results in an improvement in both fronts
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Quantifying Misattribution Unfairness in Authorship Attribution
Authorship attribution models misattribute texts to some authors far more often than chance, and the risk is highest for authors whose author embeddings sit near the centroid.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.