Pith. sign in

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

arxiv 2106.10826 v1 pith:6Y5GL4EA submitted 2021-06-21 cs.CL cs.CY

classification cs.CLcs.CY
keywords methodsrobustnesscertifiedfairnessimprovemodelsubstitutionword
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
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

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Quantifying Misattribution Unfairness in Authorship Attribution

    cs.CL 2025-06 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    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.

Pith tools