Bias amplification is a phenomenon in which models exacerbate biases or stereotypes present in the training data. In this paper, we study bias amplification in the text-to-image domain using Stable Diffusion by comparing gender ratios in training vs. generated images. We find that the model appears to amplify gender-occupation biases found in the training data (LAION) considerably. However, we discover that amplification can be largely attributed to discrepancies between training captions and model prompts. For example, an inherent difference is that captions from the training data often contain explicit gender information while our prompts do not, which leads to a distribution shift and consequently inflates bias measures. Once we account for distributional differences between texts used for training and generation when Figure 1: Comparing generated and training images for evaluating amplification, we observe that amplification engineer, the model clearly seems to amplify bias by decreases drastically. Our findings going from 25% to 10% female in training vs. generated illustrate the challenges of comparing biases in images. However, when looking at the subset of training models and their training data, and highlight examples without gender indicators in captions (similar confounding factors that impact analyses.

This paper presents novel experiments shedding light on the shortcomings of current metrics for assessing biases of gender discrimination made by machine learning algorithms on textual data. We focus on the Bios dataset, and our learning task is to predict the occupation of individuals, based on their biography. Such prediction tasks are common in commercial Natural Language Processing (NLP) applications such as automatic job recommendations. We address an important limitation of theoretical discussions dealing with group-wise fairness metrics: they focus on large datasets, although the norm in many industrial NLP applications is to use small to reasonably large linguistic datasets for which the main practical constraint is to get a good prediction accuracy. We then question how reliable are different popular measures of bias when the size of the training set is simply sufficient to learn reasonably accurate predictions. Our experiments sample the Bios dataset and learn more than 200 models on different sample sizes. This allows us to statistically study our results and to confirm that common gender bias indices provide diverging and sometimes unreliable results when applied to relatively small training and test samples. This highlights the crucial importance of variance calculations for providing sound results in this field.

We investigate how this bias affects downstream classification tasks, using the case study of occupation classification (De-Arteaga et al., 2019). We show that traditional techniques for debiasing embeddings can actually worsen the bias of the downstream classifier by providing a less noisy channel for communicating gender information. With a relatively minor adjustment, however, we show how these same techniques can be used to simultaneously reduce bias and maintain high classification accuracy.

We present a large-scale study of gender bias in occupation classification, a task where the use of machine learning may lead to negative outcomes on peoples' lives. We analyze the potential allocation harms that can result from semantic representation bias. To do so, we study the impact on occupation classification of including explicit gender indicators---such as first names and pronouns---in different semantic representations of online biographies. Additionally, we quantify the bias that remains when these indicators are "scrubbed," and describe proxy behavior that occurs in the absence of explicit gender indicators. As we demonstrate, differences in true positive rates between genders are correlated with existing gender imbalances in occupations, which may compound these imbalances.