ICLR 2025 Papers

We investigate the prominent class of fair representation learning methods for bias mitigation. Using causal reasoning to define and formalise different sources of dataset bias, we reveal important implicit assumptions inherent to these methods. We prove fundamental limitations on fair representation learning when evaluation data is drawn from the same distribution as training data and run experiments across a range of medical modalities to examine the performance of fair representation learning under distribution shifts. Our results explain apparent contradictions in the existing literature and reveal how rarely considered causal and statistical aspects of the underlying data affect the validity of fair representation learning. We raise doubts about current evaluation practices and the applicability of fair representation learning methods in performance-sensitive settings. We argue that fine-grained analysis of dataset biases should play a key role in the field moving forward.

To mitigate societal biases implicitly encoded in recent successful pretrained language models, a diverse array of approaches have been proposed to encourage model fairness, focusing on prompting, data augmentation, regularized fine-tuning, and more. Despite the development, it is nontrivial to reach a principled understanding of fairness and an effective algorithm that can consistently debias language models. In this work, by rigorous evaluations of Neural Collapse -- a learning phenomenon happen in last-layer representations and classifiers in deep networks -- on fairness-related words, we find that debiased language models exhibit collapsed alignment between token representations and word embeddings. More importantly, this observation inspires us to design a principled fine-tuning method that can effectively improve fairness in a wide range of debiasing methods, while still preserving the performance of language models on standard natural language understanding tasks. We attach our code at https://github.com/Xujxyang/Fairness-NC-main

Beyond the worst-case analysis of algorithms, the learning-augmented framework considers that an algorithm can leverage possibly imperfect predictions about the unknown variables to have guarantees tied to the prediction quality. We consider online non-clairvoyant scheduling to minimize the max-stretch under this framework, where the scheduler can access job size predictions. We present a family of algorithms: Relaxed-Greedy (RG) with an $O(\eta^3 \cdot \sqrt{P})$ competitive ratio, where $\eta$ denotes the prediction error for job sizes and $P$ the maximum job size ratio; Adaptive Relaxed-Greedy with an $O(\lambda^{0.5} \cdot \eta^{2.5} \cdot \sqrt{P})$ competitive ratio, where $\lambda$ denotes the error for the minimum job size; Predictive Relaxed-Greedy with an $O(\lambda^{0.5} \cdot \varphi^{0.5} \cdot \eta \cdot \max \\\{ \eta, \varphi \\\} \cdot \sqrt{P})$ competitive ratio, where $\varphi$ denotes the error for the maximum job size. We also present *${RG}^x$*, an algorithm that represents a trade-off between consistency and smoothness, with an $O(\eta^{2+2x} \cdot P^{1-x})$ competitive ratio. We introduce a general method using resource augmentation to bound robustness, resulting in *RR*-augmented *RG*, with a $(1 + \epsilon)$-speed $O(\min \\\{ \eta^3 \sqrt{P}, \frac{n}{\epsilon} \\\})$ competitive ratio. Finally, we conduct simulations on synthetic and real-world datasets to evaluate the practical performance of these algorithms.

Machine learning models can capture and amplify biases present in data, leading to disparate test performance across social groups. To better understand, evaluate, and mitigate these biases, a deeper theoretical understanding of how model design choices and data distribution properties contribute to bias is needed. In this work, we contribute a precise analytical theory in the context of ridge regression, both with and without random projections, where the former models feedforward neural networks in a simplified regime. Our theory offers a unified and rigorous explanation of machine learning bias, providing insights into phenomena such as bias amplification and minority-group bias in various feature and parameter regimes. For example, we observe that there may be an optimal regularization penalty or training time to avoid bias amplification, and there can be differences in test error between groups that are not alleviated with increased parameterization. Importantly, our theoretical predictions align with empirical observations reported in the literature on machine learning bias. We extensively empirically validate our theory on synthetic and semi-synthetic datasets.

The Sliced Wasserstein barycenter (SWB) is a widely acknowledged method for efficiently generalizing the averaging operation within probability measure spaces. However, achieving marginal fairness SWB, ensuring approximately equal distances from the barycenter to marginals, remains unexplored. The uniform weighted SWB is not necessarily the optimal choice to obtain the desired marginal fairness barycenter due to the heterogeneous structure of marginals and the non-optimality of the optimization. As the first attempt to tackle the problem, we define the marginal fairness sliced Wasserstein barycenter (MFSWB) as a constrained SWB problem. Due to the computational disadvantages of the formal definition, we propose two hyperparameter-free and computationally tractable surrogate MFSWB problems that implicitly minimize the distances to marginals and encourage marginal fairness at the same time. To further improve the efficiency, we perform slicing distribution selection and obtain the third surrogate definition by introducing a new slicing distribution that focuses more on marginally unfair projecting directions. We discuss the relationship of the three proposed problems and their relationship to sliced multi-marginal Wasserstein distance. Finally, we conduct experiments on finding 3D point-clouds averaging, color harmonization, and training of sliced Wasserstein autoencoder with class-fairness representation to show the favorable performance of the proposed surrogate MFSWB problems.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed to handle various natural language processing (NLP) tasks, concerns regarding the potential negative societal impacts of LLM-generated content have also arisen. To evaluate the biases exhibited by LLMs, researchers have recently proposed a variety of datasets. However, existing bias evaluation efforts often focus on only a particular type of bias and employ inconsistent evaluation metrics, leading to difficulties in comparison across different datasets and LLMs. To address these limitations, we collect a variety of datasets designed for the bias evaluation of LLMs, and further propose CEB, a Compositional Evaluation Bechmark that covers different types of bias across different social groups and tasks. The curation of CEB is based on our newly proposed compositional taxonomy, which characterizes each dataset from three dimensions: bias types, social groups, and tasks. By combining the three dimensions, we develop a comprehensive evaluation strategy for the bias in LLMs. Our experiments demonstrate that the levels of bias vary across these dimensions, thereby providing guidance for the development of specific bias mitigation methods.

Large language models (LLMs), despite their remarkable capabilities, are susceptible to generating biased and discriminatory responses. As LLMs increasingly influence high-stakes decision-making (e.g., hiring and healthcare), mitigating these biases becomes critical. In this work, we propose a causality-guided debiasing framework to tackle social biases, aiming to reduce the objectionable dependence between LLMs' decisions and the social information in the input. Our framework introduces a novel perspective to identify how social information can affect an LLM's decision through different causal pathways. Leveraging these causal insights, we outline principled prompting strategies that regulate these pathways through selection mechanisms. This framework not only unifies existing prompting-based debiasing techniques, but also opens up new directions for reducing bias by encouraging the model to prioritize fact-based reasoning over reliance on biased social cues. We validate our framework through extensive experiments on real-world datasets across multiple domains, demonstrating its effectiveness in debiasing LLM decisions, even with only black-box access to the model.