Detecting labeling bias using influence functions

Labeled datasets reflect the biases of their annotation pipelines, which sometimes introduce label bias: group-conditional label errors that cause systematic performance disparities across demographic subgroups. Label bias in image segmentation remains underexplored, as even detecting it typically requires clean, unbiased annotations, which are not readily available. We present a data-centric adaptation of Confident Learning to segmentation, allowing detection of label bias directly in the training data without a clean, unbiased ground truth. By comparing the provided training labels to the model's confident predictions, we isolate directional errors that quantify the presence and nature of bias, where standard overlap metrics like Dice fail. We further show that label bias influences subgroup separability in the encoder's feature space, an artifact we leverage for bias mitigation rather than suppressing it. We evaluate three datasets, spanning from synthetic to real-life bias, showing how our framework reliably detects and mitigates bias without access to clean labels, achieving equitable performance across experimental conditions.

Vision classifiers can exploit spurious correlations, achieving high in-distribution accuracy yet failing under distribution shift. Existing approaches to bias mitigation and analysis often depend on curated datasets, spurious-attribute or group labels, or retraining, which may be infeasible once a model is deployed or the relevant bias is unknown. We present a bias-label-free, post-hoc method for identifying spurious concepts in frozen vision models, relying only on standard class labels from a held-out audit dataset. For each target class, we collect patches from inputs predicted as that class and apply non-negative matrix factorization to intermediate activations to obtain a bank of interpretable concept vectors. Candidate concepts are then ranked with a bias estimator derived from their interaction with backpropagated gradients on misclassified examples: bias concepts tend to get activated when correcting false negatives and suppressed when correcting false positives. On Colored MNIST and Waterbirds the method recovers concepts aligned with the known spurious cue, and on CelebA it surfaces decision-relevant directions that only partially coincide with the annotated gender attribute; suppressing the top-ranked concepts at inference time improves worst-group accuracy by up to 17.9 percentage points on Waterbirds and 10.4 on CelebA without any retraining or parameter updates. Our method identifies decision-relevant spurious directions that need not coincide with annotated ones, providing both an interpretable auditing tool and an actionable debiasing handle for frozen vision models. Code is available at https://github.com/vitryt/label-free-bias-identification.

Bias can be introduced in diverse ways in machine learning datasets, for example via selection or label bias. Although these bias types in themselves have an influence on important aspects of fair machine learning, their different impact has been understudied. In this work, we empirically analyze the effect of label bias and several subtypes of selection bias on the evaluation of classification models, on their performance, and on the effectiveness of bias mitigation methods. We also introduce a biasing and evaluation framework that allows to model fair worlds and their biased counterparts through the introduction of controlled bias in real-life datasets with low discrimination. Using our framework, we empirically analyze the impact of each bias type independently, while obtaining a more representative evaluation of models and mitigation methods than with the traditional use of a subset of biased data as test set. Our results highlight different factors that influence how impactful bias is on model performance. They also show an absence of trade-off between fairness and accuracy, and between individual and group fairness, when models are evaluated on a test set that does not exhibit unwanted bias. They furthermore indicate that the performance of bias mitigation methods is influenced by the type of bias present in the data. Our findings call for future work to develop more accurate evaluations of prediction models and fairness interventions, but also to better understand other types of bias, more complex scenarios involving the combination of different bias types, and other factors that impact the efficiency of the mitigation methods, such as dataset characteristics.