Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Learning to Split for Automatic Bias Detection

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 2204.13749 v2 pith:5ZFXRQRY submitted 2022-04-28 cs.LG cs.AIcs.CLcs.CV

classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.CLcs.CV
keywords splitbiaslearningtestingautomaticdatasetperformancesplits
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Classifiers are biased when trained on biased datasets. As a remedy, we propose Learning to Split (ls), an algorithm for automatic bias detection. Given a dataset with input-label pairs, ls learns to split this dataset so that predictors trained on the training split cannot generalize to the testing split. This performance gap suggests that the testing split is under-represented in the dataset, which is a signal of potential bias. Identifying non-generalizable splits is challenging since we have no annotations about the bias. In this work, we show that the prediction correctness of each example in the testing split can be used as a source of weak supervision: generalization performance will drop if we move examples that are predicted correctly away from the testing split, leaving only those that are mis-predicted. ls is task-agnostic and can be applied to any supervised learning problem, ranging from natural language understanding and image classification to molecular property prediction. Empirical results show that ls is able to generate astonishingly challenging splits that correlate with human-identified biases. Moreover, we demonstrate that combining robust learning algorithms (such as group DRO) with splits identified by ls enables automatic de-biasing. Compared to previous state-of-the-art, we substantially improve the worst-group performance (23.4% on average) when the source of biases is unknown during training and validation.

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. Challenging reaction prediction models to generalize to novel chemistry

    cs.LG 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A Transformer reaction predictor evaluated on document-, author-, time-, and reaction-class splits reveals that in-distribution benchmarks overstate real-world accuracy and that models only partially extrapolate to un...

Pith tools