While Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have achieved remarkable performance across diverse downstream tasks, recent studies have shown that they can inherit social biases from the training data and further propagate them into downstream applications. To address this issue, various debiasing approaches have been proposed, yet most of them aim to improve fairness without having a theoretical guarantee that the utility of the model is preserved. In this paper, we introduce a debiasing method that yields a closed-form solution in the cross-modal space, achieving Pareto-optimal fairness with bounded utility losses. Our method is training-free, requires no annotated data, and can jointly debias both visual and textual modalities across downstream tasks. Extensive experiments show that our method outperforms existing methods in debiasing VLMs across diverse fairness metrics and datasets for both group and intersectional fairness in downstream tasks such as zero-shot image classification, text-to-image retrieval, and text-to-image generation while preserving task performance.
Figures & tables
Methods
SFID [ 21 ]
DeAR [ 41 ]
CLIP-clip [ 47 ]
Fairer CLIP [ 7 ]
PRISM [ 33 ]
PRISM-mini [ 33 ]
SANER [ 14 ]
Biased Prompt [ 5 ]
Robo Shot [ 1 ]
Prompt Array [ 2 ]
JointV-L [ 51 ]
Ours
Training-Free
✘
✘
✓
✘
✘
✓
✘
✓
✓
✘
✘
✓
Data-Free
✘
✘
✘
✘
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✘
✘
✓
Debiasing Both Modalities
✓
✘
✓
✓
✓
✓
✘
✘
✓
✓
✓
✓
Bounded Utility Loss
✘
✘
✘
✘
✘
✘
✘
✘
✘
✘
✘
✓
Zero-Shot Image Classification
✓
✘
✘
✓
✓
✓
✘
✓
✓
✘
✘
✓
Text-to-Image Retrieval
✓
✓
✓
✘
✘
✘
✓
✓
✘
✓
✓
✓
Table 1: Overview of recent debiasing methods in VLMs.
Figure 1: (a) Previous methods such as PRISM-mini [ 33 ] and Orth-Proj [ 5 ] debias through an orthogonal projection to the subspace S spanned by the embeddings of group-explicit prompts ( group prototypes ) such as “a photo of a female/male doctor.” However, the subspace S contains not only attribute-related information but also essential semantic content (e.g., “doctor”) that we wish to preserve. (b) We instead debias through an orthogonal projection to the attribute subspace A so that u can effectively removes bias while maintaining content-related semantics.
Figure 2: Illustration of the group prototype construction process.
Figure 3: Illustration of the optimal solution space of u .
Datasets
CelebA
FACET
Evaluation Metric
F1 ↑
ΔEOAvg (G × A) ↓
ΔEOMax (G × A) ↓
Macro F1 ↑
ΔEOAvg (G) ↓
ΔEOMax (G) ↓
Baseline CLIP (ViT-L/14)
54.0 ± 0.5
25.1 ± 0.3
45.0 ± 0.3
70.8 ± 0.2
8.9 ± 0.2
49.8 ± 0.3
I&T SFID [ 21 ]
52.8 ± 0.5
23.9 ± 0.1
41.6 ± 0.2
69.2 ± 0.3
9.3 ± 0.4
49.8 ± 0.2
I&T FairerCLIP [ 7 ]
[53.1] ± 0.2
24.0 ± 0.1
41.4 ± 0.3
[69.8] ± 0.2
9.2 ± 0.2
50.1 ± 0.4
I&T PRISM [ 33 ]
52.9 ± 0.4
23.9 ± 0.5
40.6 ± 0.1
69.0 ± 0.2
[8.1] ± 0.3
48.3 ± 0.3
I&T PRISM-mini [ 33 ]
50.4 ± 0.1
24.2 ± 0.6
40.8 ± 0.3
69.2 ± 0.4
8.6 ± 0.2
49.2 ± 0.5
Table 2: Experimental results for zero-shot image classification. (G) denotes perceived gender as the sensitive attribute, and (G × A) denotes the intersection of perceived gender and age as the sensitive attribute. ↑ indicates that higher values are better, while ↓ indicates that lower values are better. Methods that require or do not require attribute-annotated data are marked with and , respectively. Methods that involve or do not involve training are marked with and , respectively. Methods that debias only the text encoder are denoted by T , while methods that debias both modalities are marked with I&T . The results of the debiasing methods with the best means are highlighted in bold with brackets, while the second-best are shown in brackets only. All values reported are scaled by 100 (percentages).
Datasets
COCO2017
Flickr30K
Evaluation Metric
R@5 ↑
R@10 ↑
MS@1000 (G × ST) ↓
R@5 ↑
R@10 ↑
MS@1000 (G) ↓
Baseline CLIP (ViT-L/14)
83.8 ± 0.3
90.1 ± 0.4
13.4 ± 0.5
91.0 ± 0.6
95.4 ± 0.4
20.3 ± 0.3
I&T SFID [ 21 ]
[77.4] ± 0.4
86.6 ± 0.2
13.2 ± 0.3
86.8 ± 0.3
90.7 ± 0.5
13.6 ± 0.5
I&T PromptArray [ 2 ]
77.2 ± 0.6
[86.7] ± 0.5
12.8 ± 0.4
87.2 ± 0.2
92.4 ± 0.1
12.9 ± 0.4
I&T FairerCLIP [ 7 ]
76.8 ± 0.3
85.4 ± 0.4
10.2 ± 0.6
[87.9] ± 0.5
[92.5] ± 0.6
12.2 ± 0.5
I&T CLIP-clip [ 47 ]
76.1 ± 0.2
85.2 ± 0.3
[9.9] ± 0.4
87.7 ± 0.3
91.5 ± 0.1
[11.7] ± 0.5
Table 3: Experimental results for text-to-image retrieval. The markers follow the same notation style as in Table 8 . (G × ST) denotes the intersection of perceived gender and skin tone. All values reported are scaled by 100 (percentages).
Figure 4: Illustrative examples for o=“doctor" . We randomly sample ten generated images for each method. Female-looking samples are marked in red and numbered. On the left, a more balanced ratio of female- and male-looking samples indicates lower bias, while on the right, fewer female-looking samples reflect better preservation of self-utility (see Appendix G for more examples with other occupations).
Methods
SPTo↓
SP5↓
CLIPscore (%) ↑
AccG (%) ↑
Baseline SD v2.1
47.9
58.6
32.8
75.4
Orth-Proj [ 5 ]
[39.6]
[28.4]
19.7
53.4
Orth-Cali [ 5 ]
41.5
29.2
20.7
56.6
SFID [ 21 ]
41.1
29.4
[22.6]
[67.2]
Ours
[39.7]
[28.8]
[24.2]
[74.6]
Table 4: Experimental results for text-to-image generation. All values reported are scaled by 100 (percentages).
Datasets
Flickr30K
CelebA
Metrics
MS@1000 (G) ↓
ΔEOMax (G × A) ↓
Baseline CLIP (ViT-L/14)
20.3 ± 0.3
45.0 ± 0.3
debias with only pa
13.4 ± 0.5
41.1 ± 0.4
debias with only pm
14.1 ± 0.4
41.8 ± 0.5
debias with DeepSeek v3.2 [ 31 ]
[12.0] ± 0.3
[40.1] ± 0.4
debias with Gemini2.5 Pro [ 6 ]
[11.8] ± 0.6
[40.4] ± 0.2
Table 5: Experimental results of ablation studies and sensitivity analyses on different LLMs. pa denotes the anchor embedding while pm denotes the mean embedding across its variants.
Figure 5: An illustration of the prompts we use in an LLM to insert the group specification and generate the variants for each group g .
Figure 6: An illustration of the LLM output when the input is group-specific/neutral. The sensitive attribute is gender, and the selected group is female/male.
Figure 7: An illustration of the LLM output when the input is neutral. The sensitive attribute is the intersection of skin tone and gender, and the selected group is dark-skinned female.
Figure 8: An illustration of neutral prompts used for fairness evaluation and group-explicit prompts used for utility evaluation in the text-to-image generation task.
Datasets
CelebA
FACET
Evaluation Metric
F1 ↑
ΔEOAvg (G × A) ↓
ΔEOMax (G × A) ↓
Macro F1 ↑
ΔEOAvg (G) ↓
ΔEOMax (G) ↓
Baseline CLIP (ResNet50)
60.7 ± 0.5
15.3 ± 0.3
30.0 ± 0.4
59.2 ± 0.2
9.3 ± 0.6
48.9 ± 0.1
I&T SFID
56.4 ± 0.2
14.6 ± 0.5
24.9 ± 0.3
[50.8] ± 0.6
9.4 ± 0.4
47.2 ± 0.2
I&T FairerCLIP
[56.6] ± 0.3
14.2 ± 0.1
[21.4] ± 0.4
50.7 ± 0.5
8.9 ± 0.6
47.2 ± 0.2
I&T PRISM
56.3 ± 0.1
14.7 ± 0.4
[21.8] ± 0.3
50.5 ± 0.6
[8.4] ± 0.5
47.6 ± 0.2
I&T PRISM-mini
56.0 ± 0.6
13.7 ± 0.3
24.9 ± 0.1
49.2 ± 0.4
8.9 ± 0.5
46.6 ± 0.2
Table 6: Experimental results of CLIP (ResNet50) on the zero-shot image classification task.
Datasets
COCO2017
Flickr30K
Evaluation Metric
R@5 ↑
R@10 ↑
MS@1000 (G × ST) ↓
R@5 ↑
R@10 ↑
MS@1000 (G) ↓
Baseline CLIP (ResNet50)
71.4 ± 0.5
81.8 ± 0.1
13.3 ± 0.3
78.5 ± 0.6
85.9 ± 0.4
18.6 ± 0.5
I&T SFID
[66.6] ± 0.2
76.3 ± 0.3
12.7 ± 0.4
74.9 ± 0.6
79.6 ± 0.2
15.2 ± 0.3
I&T PromptArray
66.5 ± 0.5
[76.5] ± 0.4
12.2 ± 0.1
74.9 ± 0.3
[81.6] ± 0.3
15.4 ± 0.5
I&T FairerCLIP
65.8 ± 0.6
74.8 ± 0.3
11.8 ± 0.5
75.2 ± 0.2
[81.6] ± 0.4
16.0 ± 0.3
I&T CLIP-clip
65.6 ± 0.1
74.9 ± 0.5
[10.0] ± 0.6
[75.3] ± 0.3
80.8 ± 0.4
[13.2] ± 0.5
Table 7: Experimental results of CLIP (ResNet50) on the text-to-image retrieval task.
Datasets
CelebA
FACET
Evaluation Metric
F1 ↑
ΔEOAvg (G × A) ↓
ΔEOMax (G × A) ↓
Macro F1 ↑
ΔEOAvg (G) ↓
ΔEOMax (G) ↓
Baseline BLIP
46.9 ± 0.6
14.7 ± 0.4
29.2 ± 0.6
68.4 ± 0.3
8.8 ± 0.5
48.0 ± 0.4
I&T SFID
[52.5] ± 0.2
[12.1] ± 0.1
26.4 ± 0.3
60.6 ± 0.1
8.2 ± 0.2
47.1 ± 0.5
I&T FairerCLIP
52.1 ± 0.4
13.4 ± 0.6
[22.6] ± 0.4
[61.0] ± 0.3
8.9 ± 0.6
46.5 ± 0.3
I&T PRISM
[5] ± 0.5
13.8 ± 0.2
26.1 ± 0.5
60.3 ± 0.4
[6.8] ± 0.3
46.0 ± 0.5
I&T PRISM-mini
49.5 ± 0.4
14.0 ± 0.5
25.1 ± 0.1
60.0 ± 0.2
7.4 ± 0.1
46.1 ± 0.4
Table 8: Experimental results of BLIP on the zero-shot image classification task.
Datasets
COCO2017
Flickr30K
Evaluation Metric
R@5 ↑
R@10 ↑
MS@1000 (G × ST) ↓
R@5 ↑
R@10 ↑
MS@1000 (G) ↓
Baseline BLIP
93.9 ± 0.5
97.2 ± 0.1
15.1 ± 0.6
93.9 ± 0.4
96.8 ± 0.2
18.3 ± 0.6
I&T SFID
[90.6] ± 0.3
95.9 ± 0.4
12.5 ± 0.1
86.1 ± 0.6
89.9 ± 0.5
13.5 ± 0.1
I&T PromptArray
90.4 ± 0.2
[96.0] ± 0.3
12.9 ± 0.4
86.4 ± 0.3
91.5 ± 0.4
12.8 ± 0.5
I&T FairerCLIP
90.0 ± 0.6
94.7 ± 0.2
13.3 ± 0.3
[91.0] ± 0.2
[91.7] ± 0.3
12.0 ± 0.4
I&T CLIP-clip
90.3 ± 0.4
94.5 ± 0.6
[11.2] ± 0.5
[91.0] ± 0.1
90.8 ± 0.1
[8.1] ± 0.2
Table 9: Experimental results of BLIP on the text-to-image retrieval task.
Figure 9: Illustrative examples for o=“designer" . We randomly sample ten generated images for each method. Male-looking samples are marked in red and numbered. On the left, a more balanced ratio of female- and male-looking samples indicates lower bias, while on the right, fewer male-looking samples reflect better preservation of self-utility.
Figure 10: Illustrative examples for o=“computer programmer" . We randomly sample ten generated images for each method. Female-looking samples are marked in red and numbered. On the left, a more balanced ratio of female- and male-looking samples indicates lower bias, while on the right, fewer female-looking samples reflect better preservation of self-utility.
Figure 11: Illustrative examples for o=“civil engineer" . We randomly sample ten generated images for each method. Female-looking samples are marked in red and numbered. On the left, a more balanced ratio of female- and male-looking samples indicates lower bias, while on the right, fewer female-looking samples reflect better preservation of self-utility.
Figure 12: Illustrative examples for o=“CEO" . We randomly sample ten generated images for each method. Female-looking samples are marked in red and numbered. On the left, a more balanced ratio of female- and male-looking samples indicates lower bias, while on the right, fewer female-looking samples reflect better preservation of self-utility.
The rapid advancement of Vision-Language models (VLMs) has raised growing concerns that their black-box reasoning processes could lead to unintended forms of social bias. Current debiasing approaches focus on mitigating surface-level bias signals through post-hoc learning or test-time algorithms, while leaving the internal dynamics of the model largely unexplored. In this work, we introduce an interpretable, model-agnostic bias mitigation framework, DeBiasLens, that localizes social attribute neurons in VLMs through sparse autoencoders (SAEs) applied to multimodal encoders. Building upon the disentanglement ability of SAEs, we train them on facial image or caption datasets without corresponding social attribute labels to uncover neurons highly responsive to specific demographics, including those that are underrepresented. By selectively deactivating the social neurons most strongly tied to bias for each group, we effectively mitigate socially biased behaviors of VLMs without degrading their semantic knowledge. Our research lays the groundwork for future auditing tools, prioritizing social fairness in emerging real-world AI systems.
Vision language models (VLMs) demonstrate strong zero-shot performance, but often perpetuate social stereotypes in person-centric queries, yielding skewed demographic distributions. Current debiasing methods apply uniform bias corrections across all input queries regardless of their bias sensitivity, creating a fundamental fairness--utility trade-off. Strong debiasing distorts semantically meaningful information in bias-insensitive queries, while weak debiasing fails to mitigate stereotypes in bias-sensitive ones. This one-size-fits-all approach hampers simultaneously achieving high utility on bias-insensitive queries and fairness on bias-sensitive queries. We introduce Reward-Gated Test-Time Adaptation (RG-TTA), a reinforcement learning-based test-time adaptation framework that selectively applies debiasing based on input sensitivity. RG-TTA adaptively triggers fairness regularization based on the bias sensitivity of each input during test-time policy adaptation, while focusing exclusively on optimizing cross-modal alignment for bias-insensitive inputs. Experiments on fairness benchmarks (e.g., FairFace, UTKFace) demonstrate substantial bias reduction while simultaneously improving zero-shot utility, resolving the trade-off of uniform debiasing.
Jaeho Han, Jisoo Yang, Hyeondong Woo +3
Department of Artificial Intelligence, Chung-Ang University
Models that bridge vision and language, such as CLIP, are key components of multimodal AI, yet their large-scale, uncurated training data introduce severe social and spurious biases. Existing post-hoc debiasing methods often operate directly in the dense CLIP embedding space, where bias and task-relevant information are highly entangled. This entanglement limits their ability to remove bias without degrading semantic fidelity. In this work, we propose Sparse Embedding Modulation (SEM), a post-hoc, zero-shot debiasing framework that operates in a Sparse Autoencoder (SAE) latent space. By decomposing CLIP text embeddings into disentangled features, SEM identifies and modulates bias-relevant neurons while preserving query-relevant ones. This enables more precise, non-linear interventions. Across four benchmark datasets and two CLIP backbones, SEM achieves substantial fairness gains in retrieval and zero-shot classification. Our results demonstrate that sparse latent representations provide an effective foundation for post-hoc debiasing of vision-language models.