For this, we utilize an auxiliary contrastive model with the popular heuristic that biased features are learned preferentially during training.

Models trained with empirical risk minimization (ERM) are prone to be biased towards spurious correlations between target labels and bias attributes, which leads to poor performance on data groups lacking spurious correlations. It is particularly challenging to address this problem when access to bias labels is not permitted. To mitigate the effect of spurious correlations without bias labels, we first introduce a novel training objective designed to robustly enhance model performance across all data samples, irrespective of the presence of spurious correlations. From this objective, we then derive a debiasing method, Disagreement Probability based Resampling for debiasing (DPR), which does not require bias labels. DPR leverages the disagreement between the target label and the prediction of a biased model to identify bias-conflicting samples--those without spurious correlations--and upsamples them according to the disagreement probability. Empirical evaluations on multiple benchmarks demonstrate that DPR achieves state-of-the-art performance over existing baselines that do not use bias labels. Furthermore, we provide a theoretical analysis that details how DPR reduces dependency on spurious correlations.

Empirical risk minimization (ERM) is sensitive to spurious correlations present in training data, which poses a significant risk when deploying systems trained under this paradigm in high-stake applications. While the existing literature focuses on maximizing group-balanced or worst-group accuracy, estimating these quantities is hindered by costly bias annotations. This study contends that current bias-unsupervised approaches to group robustness continue to rely on group information to achieve optimal performance. Firstly, these methods implicitly assume that all group combinations are represented during training. To illustrate this, we introduce a systematic generalization task on the MPI3D dataset and discover that current algorithms fail to improve the ERM baseline when combinations of observed attribute values are missing. Secondly, bias labels are still crucial for effective model selection, restricting the practicality of these methods in real-world scenarios. To address these limitations, we propose a revised methodology for training and validating debiased models in an entirely bias-unsupervised manner. We achieve this by employing pretrained self-supervised models to reliably extract bias information, which enables the integration of a logit adjustment training loss with our validation criterion. Our empirical analysis on synthetic and real-world tasks provides evidence that our approach overcomes the identified challenges and consistently enhances robust accuracy, attaining performance which is competitive with or outperforms that of state-of-the-art methods, which, conversely, rely on bias labels for validation.

Datasets for training machine learning models tend to be biased unless the data is collected with complete care. In such a biased dataset, models are susceptible to making predictions based on the biased features of the data. The biased model fails to generalize to the case where correlations between biases and targets are shifted. To mitigate this, we propose Bias-Contrastive (BiasCon) loss based on the contrastive learning framework, which effectively leverages the knowledge of bias labels. We further suggest Bias-Balanced (BiasBal) regression which trains the classification model toward the data distribution with balanced target-bias correlation. Furthermore, we propose Soft Bias-Contrastive (SoftCon) loss which handles the dataset without bias labels by softening the pair assignment of the BiasCon loss based on the distance in the feature space of the bias-capturing model. Our experiments show that our proposed methods significantly improve previous debiasing methods in various realistic datasets.

Datasets for training machine learning models tend to be biased unless the data is collected with complete care.

It is particularly challenging to address this problem when access to bias labels is not permitted.

We present BiasLab, a dataset of 300 political news articles annotated for perceived ideological bias. These articles were selected from a curated 900-document pool covering diverse political events and source biases. Each article is labeled by crowdworkers along two independent scales, assessing sentiment toward the Democratic and Republican parties, and enriched with rationale indicators. The annotation pipeline incorporates targeted worker qualification and was refined through pilot-phase analysis. We quantify inter-annotator agreement, analyze misalignment with source-level outlet bias, and organize the resulting labels into interpretable subsets. Additionally, we simulate annotation using schema-constrained GPT-4o, enabling direct comparison to human labels and revealing mirrored asymmetries, especially in misclassifying subtly right-leaning content. We define two modeling tasks: perception drift prediction and rationale type classification, and report baseline performance to illustrate the challenge of explainable bias detection. BiasLab's rich rationale annotations provide actionable interpretations that facilitate explainable modeling of political bias, supporting the development of transparent, socially aware NLP systems. We release the dataset, annotation schema, and modeling code to encourage research on human-in-the-loop interpretability and the evaluation of explanation effectiveness in real-world settings.

Datasets for training machine learning models tend to be biased unless the data is collected with complete care.

For this, we utilize an auxiliary contrastive model with the popular heuristic that biased features are learned preferentially during training.