mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Data AUDIT: Identifying Attribute Utility- and Detectability-Induced Bias in Task Models

arXiv 2304.03218 ↗First posted 6 Apr 2023cs.LG cs.CVcited by 4

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

To safely deploy deep learning-based computer vision models for computer-aided detection and diagnosis, we must ensure that they are robust and reliable. Towards that goal, algorithmic auditing has received substantial attention. To guide their audit procedures, existing methods rely on heuristic approaches or high-level objectives (e.g., non-discrimination in regards to protected attributes, such as sex, gender, or race). However, algorithms may show bias with respect to various attributes beyond the more obvious ones, and integrity issues related to these more subtle attributes can have serious consequences. To enable the generation of actionable, data-driven hypotheses which identify specific dataset attributes likely to induce model bias, we contribute a first technique for the rigorous, quantitative screening of medical image datasets. Drawing from literature in the causal inference and information theory domains, our procedure decomposes the risks associated with dataset attributes in terms of their detectability and utility (defined as the amount of information knowing the attribute gives about a task label). To demonstrate the effectiveness and sensitivity of our method, we develop a variety of datasets with synthetically inserted artifacts with different degrees of association to the target label that allow evaluation of inherited model biases via comparison of performance against true counterfactual examples. Using these datasets and results from hundreds of trained models, we show our screening method reliably identifies nearly imperceptible bias-inducing artifacts. Lastly, we apply our method to the natural attributes of a popular skin-lesion dataset and demonstrate its success. Our approach provides a means to perform more systematic algorithmic audits and guide future data collection efforts in pursuit of safer and more reliable models.

Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Apr 2023.

Builds on

17 of 36 references.

References · 17

  1. 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 51,809
  2. 2021Swin Transformer: Hierarchical Vision Transformer using Shifted Windowscited by 12,082
  3. 2020Shortcut Learning in Deep Neural Networkscited by 1,928
  4. 2017CheXNet: Radiologist-Level Pneumonia Detection on Chest X-Rays with Deep Learningcited by 459
  5. 2019Hidden Stratification Causes Clinically Meaningful Failures in Machine Learning for Medical Imagingcited by 215
  6. 2019Causality matters in medical imagingcited by 193
  7. 2021Reading Race: AI Recognises Patient's Racial Identity In Medical Imagescited by 155
  8. 2020CheXclusion: Fairness gaps in deep chest X-ray classifierscited by 153
  9. 2022The Fallacy of AI Functionalitycited by 88
  10. 2017Conditional independence testing based on a nearest-neighbor estimator of conditional mutual informationcited by 70
  11. 2020Debiasing Skin Lesion Datasets and Models? Not So Fastcited by 43
  12. 2019(De)Constructing Bias on Skin Lesion Datasetscited by 30
5 more
  1. 2020Deep Learning Applied to Chest X-Rays: Exploiting and Preventing Shortcutscited by 29
  2. 2021Measuring Model Biases in the Absence of Ground Truthcited by 24
  3. 2021Skin Deep Unlearning: Artefact and Instrument Debiasing in the Context of Melanoma Classificationcited by 18
  4. 2018Evaluating Fairness Metrics in the Presence of Dataset Biascited by 15
  5. 2021Algorithmic encoding of protected characteristics in image-based models for disease detectioncited by 7

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 3.

4 papers.