Log-linear Guardedness and its Implications
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Methods for erasing human-interpretable concepts from neural representations that assume linearity have been found to be tractable and useful. However, the impact of this removal on the behavior of downstream classifiers trained on the modified representations is not fully understood. In this work, we formally define the notion of log-linear guardedness as the inability of an adversary to predict the concept directly from the representation, and study its implications. We show that, in the binary case, under certain assumptions, a downstream log-linear model cannot recover the erased concept. However, we demonstrate that a multiclass log-linear model can be constructed that indirectly recovers the concept in some cases, pointing to the inherent limitations of log-linear guardedness as a downstream bias mitigation technique. These findings shed light on the theoretical limitations of linear erasure methods and highlight the need for further research on the connections between intrinsic and extrinsic bias in neural models.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 26 of its 38 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Oct 2022.
Builds on
26 of 38 references.
References · 26
- 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,911
- 2016Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddingscited by 1,304
- 2016Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biasescited by 894
- 2014Certifying and removing disparate impactcited by 715
- 2018Mitigating Unwanted Biases with Adversarial Learningcited by 663
- 2020Null It Out: Guarding Protected Attributes by Iterative Nullspace Projectioncited by 442
- 2016Assessing the Ability of LSTMs to Learn Syntax-Sensitive Dependenciescited by 350
- 2019Bias in Bios: A Case Study of Semantic Representation Bias in a High-Stakes Settingcited by 346
- 2019Measuring Bias in Contextualized Word Representationscited by 275
- 2019Gender Bias in Contextualized Word Embeddingscited by 203
- 2015Censoring Representations with an Adversarycited by 191
- 2018Adversarial Removal of Demographic Attributes from Text Datacited by 166
14 more
- 2020A Theory of Usable Information Under Computational Constraintscited by 153
- 2020Intrinsic Bias Metrics Do Not Correlate with Application Biascited by 148
- 2017Controllable Invariance through Adversarial Feature Learningcited by 127
- 2021Debiasing Pre-trained Contextualised Embeddingscited by 107
- 2022Linear Adversarial Concept Erasurecited by 98
- 2021Contrastive Explanations for Model Interpretabilitycited by 75
- 2022On the Intrinsic and Extrinsic Fairness Evaluation Metrics for Contextualized Language Representationscited by 75
- 2019Attenuating Bias in Word Vectorscited by 64
- 2018Evaluating Layers of Representation in Neural Machine Translation on Part-of-Speech and Semantic Tagging Taskscited by 56
- 2016Adversarial Deep Averaging Networks for Cross-Lingual Sentiment Classificationcited by 48
- 2020OSCaR: Orthogonal Subspace Correction and Rectification of Biases in Word Embeddingscited by 40
- 2022Gold Doesn't Always Glitter: Spectral Removal of Linear and Nonlinear Guarded Attribute Informationcited by 33
- 2022How Gender Debiasing Affects Internal Model Representations, and Why It Matterscited by 12
- 2016Word Representation Models for Morphologically Rich Languages in Neural Machine Translationcited by 9
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 1.
1 paper.
- 2023LEACE: Perfect linear concept erasure in closed formcited by 254
- 2023LEACE: Perfect linear concept erasure in closed form6 Jun 2023