Vision-language models, such as CLIP, have shown impressive generalization capacities when using appropriate text descriptions.

Real-world data often exhibits long-tailed distributions with heavy class imbalance, posing great challenges for deep recognition models. We identify a persisting dilemma on the value of labels in the context of imbalanced learning: on the one hand, supervision from labels typically leads to better results than its unsupervised counterparts; on the other hand, heavily imbalanced data naturally incurs ''label bias'' in the classifier, where the decision boundary can be drastically altered by the majority classes. In this work, we systematically investigate these two facets of labels. We demonstrate, theoretically and empirically, that class-imbalanced learning can significantly benefit in both semi-supervised and self-supervised manners. Specifically, we confirm that (1) positively, imbalanced labels are valuable: given more unlabeled data, the original labels can be leveraged with the extra data to reduce label bias in a semi-supervised manner, which greatly improves the final classifier; (2) negatively however, we argue that imbalanced labels are not useful always: classifiers that are first pre-trained in a self-supervised manner consistently outperform their corresponding baselines. Extensive experiments on large-scale imbalanced datasets verify our theoretically grounded strategies, showing superior performance over previous state-of-the-arts. Our intriguing findings highlight the need to rethink the usage of imbalanced labels in realistic long-tailed tasks. Code is available at https://github.com/YyzHarry/imbalanced-semi-self.

Vision-language models, such as CLIP, have shown impressive generalization capacities when using appropriate text descriptions. While optimizing prompts on downstream labeled data has proven effective in improving performance, these methods entail labor costs for annotations and are limited by their quality. Additionally, since CLIP is pre-trained on highly imbalanced Web-scale data, it suffers from inherent label bias that leads to suboptimal performance. To tackle the above challenges, we propose a label-**F**ree p**ro**mpt distribution **l**earning and b**i**as **c**orrection framework, dubbed as **Frolic**, which boosts zero-shot performance without the need for labeled data. Specifically, our Frolic learns distributions over prompt prototypes to capture diverse visual representations and adaptively fuses these with the original CLIP through confidence matching.This fused model is further enhanced by correcting label bias via a label-free logit adjustment. Notably, our method is not only training-free but also circumvents the necessity for hyper-parameter tuning. Extensive experimental results across 16 datasets demonstrate the efficacy of our approach, particularly outperforming the state-of-the-art by an average of $2.6\%$ on 10 datasets with CLIP ViT-B/16 and achieving an average margin of $1.5\%$ on ImageNet and its five distribution shifts with CLIP ViT-B/16.

Large language models (LLMs) are powerful zero- and few-shot learners. However, when predicting over a set of candidate options, LLMs suffer from label biases, and existing calibration methods overlook biases arising from multi-token class labels. We tackle an issue we call label length bias, where labels of different lengths are treated inconsistently, even after standard length normalization. To mitigate it, we propose normalized contextual calibration (NCC), an effective method that normalizes and calibrates predictions at the full-label level. NCC achieves statistically significant improvements over prior approaches across multiple datasets and models, with gains of up to 10% F1. Moreover, NCC extends bias mitigation to broader tasks such as multiple-choice question answering. Our analysis shows that, when combined with in-context learning, NCC is less sensitive to few-shot example selection, requires fewer examples for competitive performance, and produces more reliable confidence estimates. These findings highlight the importance of mitigating full-label biases to improve the performance and robustness of LLM-based methods, particularly in real-world applications where class labels naturally consist of multiple tokens.

Operationalizing definitions of fairness is difficult in practice, as multiple definitions can be incompatible while each being arguably desirable. Instead, it may be easier to directly describe algorithmic bias through ad-hoc assumptions specific to a particular real-world task, e.g., based on background information on systemic biases in its context. Such assumptions can, in turn, be used to mitigate this bias during training. Y et, a framework for incorporating such assumptions that is simultaneously principled, flexible, and interpretable is currently lacking. Our approach is to formalize bias assumptions as programs in ProbLog, a probabilistic logic programming language that allows for the description of probabilistic causal relationships through logic. Neurosymbolic extensions of ProbLog then allow for easy integration of these assumptions in a neural network's training process. We propose a set of templates to express different types of bias and show the versatility of our approach on synthetic tabular datasets with known biases. Using estimates of the bias distortions present, we also succeed in mitigating algorithmic bias in real-world tabular and image data. We conclude that ProbLog4Fairness outperforms baselines due to its ability to flexibly model the relevant bias assumptions, where other methods typically uphold a fixed bias type or notion of fairness.

Algorithmic bias in medical imaging can perpetuate health disparities, yet its causes remain poorly understood in segmentation tasks. While fairness has been extensively studied in classification, segmentation remains underexplored despite its clinical importance. In breast cancer segmentation, models exhibit significant performance disparities against younger patients, commonly attributed to physiological differences in breast density. We audit the MAMA-MIA dataset, establishing a quantitative baseline of age-related bias in its automated labels, and reveal a critical Biased Ruler effect where systematically flawed labels for validation misrepresent a model's actual bias. However, whether this bias originates from lower-quality annotations (label bias) or from fundamentally more challenging image characteristics remains unclear. Through controlled experiments, we systematically refute hypotheses that the bias stems from label quality sensitivity or quantitative case difficulty imbalance. Balancing training data by difficulty fails to mitigate the disparity, revealing that younger patient cases are intrinsically harder to learn. We provide direct evidence that systemic bias is learned and amplified when training on biased, machine-generated labels, a critical finding for automated annotation pipelines. This work introduces a systematic framework for diagnosing algorithmic bias in medical segmentation and demonstrates that achieving fairness requires addressing qualitative distributional differences rather than merely balancing case counts.