8.8CVMar 6
Mitigating Bias in Concept Bottleneck Models for Fair and Interpretable Image ClassificationSchrasing Tong, Antoine Salaun, Vincent Yuan et al.
Ensuring fairness in image classification prevents models from perpetuating and amplifying bias. Concept bottleneck models (CBMs) map images to high-level, human-interpretable concepts before making predictions via a sparse, one-layer classifier. This structure enhances interpretability and, in theory, supports fairness by masking sensitive attribute proxies such as facial features. However, CBM concepts have been known to leak information unrelated to concept semantics and early results reveal only marginal reductions in gender bias on datasets like ImSitu. We propose three bias mitigation techniques to improve fairness in CBMs: 1. Decreasing information leakage using a top-k concept filter, 2. Removing biased concepts, and 3. Adversarial debiasing. Our results outperform prior work in terms of fairness-performance tradeoffs, indicating that our debiased CBM provides a significant step towards fair and interpretable image classification.
11.1HCMar 6
Measuring Perceptions of Fairness in AI Systems: The Effects of Infra-marginalitySchrasing Tong, Minseok Jung, Ilaria Liccardi et al.
Differences in data distributions between demographic groups, known as the problem of infra-marginality, complicate how people evaluate fairness in machine learning models. We present a user study with 85 participants in a hypothetical medical decision-making scenario to examine two treatments: group-specific model performance and training data availability. Our results show that participants did not equate fairness with simple statistical parity. When group-specific performances were equal or unavailable, participants preferred models that produced equal outcomes; when performances differed, especially in ways consistent with data imbalances, they judged models that preserved those differences as more fair. These findings highlight that fairness judgments are shaped not only by outcomes, but also by beliefs about the causes of disparities. We discuss implications for popular group fairness definitions and system design, arguing that accounting for distributional context is critical to aligning algorithmic fairness metrics with human expectations in real-world applications.