mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Markedness in Visual Semantic AI

arXiv 2205.11378 ↗First posted 23 May 2022cs.CV cs.AI cs.CLcited by 29

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

We evaluate the state-of-the-art multimodal "visual semantic" model CLIP ("Contrastive Language Image Pretraining") for biases related to the marking of age, gender, and race or ethnicity. Given the option to label an image as "a photo of a person" or to select a label denoting race or ethnicity, CLIP chooses the "person" label 47.9% of the time for White individuals, compared with 5.0% or less for individuals who are Black, East Asian, Southeast Asian, Indian, or Latino or Hispanic. The model is more likely to rank the unmarked "person" label higher than labels denoting gender for Male individuals (26.7% of the time) vs. Female individuals (15.2% of the time). Age affects whether an individual is marked by the model: Female individuals under the age of 20 are more likely than Male individuals to be marked with a gender label, but less likely to be marked with an age label, while Female individuals over the age of 40 are more likely to be marked based on age than Male individuals. We also examine the self-similarity (mean pairwise cosine similarity) for each social group, where higher self-similarity denotes greater attention directed by CLIP to the shared characteristics (age, race, or gender) of the social group. As age increases, the self-similarity of representations of Female individuals increases at a higher rate than for Male individuals, with the disparity most pronounced at the "more than 70" age range. All ten of the most self-similar social groups are individuals under the age of 10 or over the age of 70, and six of the ten are Female individuals. Existing biases of self-similarity and markedness between Male and Female gender groups are further exacerbated when the groups compared are individuals who are White and Male and individuals who are Black and Female. Results indicate that CLIP reflects the biases of the language and society which produced its training data.

Key facts. Cited by 29 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 30 of its 65 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 May 2022.

Builds on

30 of 65 references.

References · 30

  1. 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 52,096
  2. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,399
  3. 2021Learning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervisioncited by 33,744
  4. 2020An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scalecited by 30,186
  5. 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,599
  6. 2021Zero-Shot Text-to-Image Generationcited by 4,288
  7. 2021Scaling Up Visual and Vision-Language Representation Learning With Noisy Text Supervisioncited by 3,864
  8. 2019ViLBERT: Pretraining Task-Agnostic Visiolinguistic Representations for Vision-and-Language Taskscited by 2,222
  9. 2019Self-training with Noisy Student improves ImageNet classificationcited by 1,311
  10. 2019VisualBERT: A Simple and Performant Baseline for Vision and Languagecited by 1,296
  11. 2020StereoSet: Measuring stereotypical bias in pretrained language modelscited by 924
  12. 2016Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biasescited by 901
18 more
  1. 2019Contrastive Representation Distillationcited by 748
  2. 2021SimVLM: Simple Visual Language Model Pretraining with Weak Supervisioncited by 647
  3. 2020Contrastive Learning of Medical Visual Representations from Paired Images and Textcited by 641
  4. 2019The Woman Worked as a Babysitter: On Biases in Language Generationcited by 541
  5. 2021SLIP: Self-supervision meets Language-Image Pre-trainingcited by 436
  6. 2019On Measuring Social Biases in Sentence Encoderscited by 398
  7. 2021Multimodal datasets: misogyny, pornography, and malignant stereotypescited by 327
  8. 2013Zero-Shot Learning Through Cross-Modal Transfercited by 237
  9. 2020Detecting Emergent Intersectional Biases: Contextualized Word Embeddings Contain a Distribution of Human-like Biasescited by 167
  10. 2019Assessing Social and Intersectional Biases in Contextualized Word Representationscited by 135
  11. 2021Evaluating CLIP: Towards Characterization of Broader Capabilities and Downstream Implicationscited by 128
  12. 2020Image Representations Learned With Unsupervised Pre-Training Contain Human-like Biasescited by 107
  13. 2021Are Gender-Neutral Queries Really Gender-Neutral? Mitigating Gender Bias in Image Searchcited by 90
  14. 2019Predictive Inequity in Object Detectioncited by 77
  15. 2021Low Frequency Names Exhibit Bias and Overfitting in Contextualizing Language Modelscited by 39
  16. 2021Dodging Attack Using Carefully Crafted Natural Makeupcited by 17
  17. 2021Understanding the Representation and Representativeness of Age in AI Data Setscited by 15
  18. 2022Contrastive Visual Semantic Pretraining Magnifies the Semantics of Natural Language Representationscited by 14

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2022: 4; 2023: 10; 2024: 7; 2025: 3; 2026: 5.

29 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2022Easily Accessible Text-to-Image Generation Amplifies Demographic Stereotypes at Large Scalecited by 262
  2. 2023Marked Personas: Using Natural Language Prompts to Measure Stereotypes in Language Modelscited by 207
  3. 2023Fair Diffusion: Instructing Text-to-Image Generation Models on Fairnesscited by 151
  4. 2023Inspecting the Geographical Representativeness of Images from Text-to-Image Modelscited by 44
  5. 2022American == White in Multimodal Language-and-Image AIcited by 39
  6. 2023ChatGPT Perpetuates Gender Bias in Machine Translation and Ignores Non-Gendered Pronouns: Findings across Bengali and Five other Low-Resource Languagescited by 34
  7. 2023Survey of Social Bias in Vision-Language Modelscited by 26
  8. 2022Gender Bias in Word Embeddings: A Comprehensive Analysis of Frequency, Syntax, and Semanticscited by 24
  9. 2022One Model to Edit Them All: Free-Form Text-Driven Image Manipulation with Semantic Modulationscited by 24
  10. 2024Would Deep Generative Models Amplify Bias in Future Models?cited by 24
  11. 2023Evaluating Biased Attitude Associations of Language Models in an Intersectional Contextcited by 20
  12. 2024SANER: Annotation-free Societal Attribute Neutralizer for Debiasing CLIPcited by 19
17 more
  1. 2024BendVLM: Test-Time Debiasing of Vision-Language Embeddingscited by 17
  2. 2023Quantifying Bias in Text-to-Image Generative Modelscited by 16
  3. 2024Social Perception of Faces in a Vision-Language Modelcited by 10
  4. 2023Uncovering Bias in Face Generation Modelscited by 9
  5. 2023DIG In: Evaluating Disparities in Image Generations with Indicators for Geographic Diversitycited by 9
  6. 2025Person-Centric Annotations of LAION-400M: Auditing Bias and Its Transfer to Modelscited by 4
  7. 2023DiffusionWorldViewer: Exposing and Broadening the Worldview Reflected by Generative Text-to-Image Modelscited by 3
  8. 2025From Cradle to Cane: A Two-Pass Framework for High-Fidelity Lifespan Face Agingcited by 3
  9. 2024Multi-Group Proportional Representation in Retrievalcited by 2
  10. 2025From Global to Local: Social Bias Transfer in CLIPcited by 2
  11. 2024Template-Based Probes Are Imperfect Lenses for Counterfactual Bias Evaluation in LLMscited by 1
  12. 2026Neutral Prompts, Non-Neutral People: Quantifying Gender and Skin-Tone Bias in Gemini Flash 2.5 Image and GPT Image 1.5cited by 1
  13. 2026AnchorScore: A CLIP-Based Diagnostic of MLLM Annotation Difficultycited by 1
  14. 2024Misgendering and Assuming Gender in Machine Translation when Working with Low-Resource Languagescited by 0
  15. 2026"I'm happy even though it's not real": GenAI Photo Editing as a Remembering Experiencecited by 0
  16. 2026FAIR_XAI: Improving Multimodal Foundation Model Fairness via Explainability for Wellbeing Assessmentcited by 0
  17. 2026Your Multimodal Speech Model Says I Have a Face for Radiocited by 0