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.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: SAEs decompose entangled embeddings for precise intervention. (a) Standard methods operate directly on the dense, entangled CLIP embedding space. (b) Our SEM first projects the embedding into a sparse, disentangled latent space via an SAE. This enables a precise intervention on specific features, resolving the limitations of dense-space manipulation.
Figure 2: SAEs Significantly Improve Feature Disentanglement. We plot our Disentanglement Score (higher is better) , which measures a profession probe’s ability to avoid capturing bias. Standard CLIP embeddings (blue) show low disentanglement, while our SAE latent space (orange) consistently increases the score.
Figure 3: Overview of the SEM framework. Our method operates in two stages: (a) Scoring: The CLIP embedding is projected into the SAE latent space. Neurons are then scored for content relevance ( Sec. 3.3 ) and bias sensitivity ( Sec. 3.4 ) by comparing their activations to pre-computed prompt sets. (b) Steering: The scores are combined into a modulation coefficient M that attenuates bias neurons and boosts content neurons ( Sec. 3.5 ). The final, debiased embedding is reconstructed from this modulated latent vector.
Figure 4: Visualizing Debiasing on Entangled Concepts. (a) A 2D PCA of original CLIP embeddings for 100 professions. Gender clusters (‘female’, ‘male’) are clearly separated, but the ‘neutral’ and ‘male’ ones incorrectly overlap. (b) Orth-Proj achieves a partial overlap between ‘male’ and ‘female’ clusters, but fails to merge the ‘neutral’ cluster and appears to disrupt the data’s underlying structure. (c) SEM b successfully merges all three clusters (‘male’, ‘female’, and ‘neutral’) into a cohesive distribution with a consistent structure.
Method
Content Preservation (↑)
Bias Neutralization (↑)
Orth-Proj
0.415
0.916
SEM b
0.878
0.974
Table 1: Quantitative analysis of debiasing methods. Ideally, methods should have high Content Preservation and high Bias Neutralization. Orth-Proj fails at content preservation.
Method
FairFace
UTKFace
ViT-B/16
ViT-L/14@336px
ViT-B/16
ViT-L/14@336px
Race
Gender
Race
Gender
Race
Gender
Race
Gender
KL (↓)
MS (↓)
KL (↓)
MS (↓)
KL (↓)
MS (↓)
KL (↓)
MS (↓)
KL (↓)
MS (↓)
KL (↓)
MS (↓)
KL (↓)
MS (↓)
KL (↓)
MS (↓)
Base CLIP
0.237
0.795
0.139
0.346
0.244
0.798
0.114
0.326
0.124
0.475
0.134
0.321
0.124
0.461
0.040
0.185
Bias-agnostic + input-specific prompts
RoboShot
0.327
0.891
0.349
0.508
0.304
0.926
0.324
0.519
0.220
0.681
0.247
0.396
0.236
0.742
0.269
0.467
Table 2: Measuring race and gender bias for Stereotype queries on FairFace and UTKFace. Bold : Best in setting (row group) and better than Base CLIP . Underline : Best in setting, but not improving over Base CLIP . Gray : Method is not zero-shot.
Method
CelebA (Gender)
Waterbirds (Background)
ViT-B/16
ViT-L/14@336px
ViT-B/16
ViT-L/14@336px
Acc. (↑)
WG (↑)
Gap (↓)
Acc. (↑)
WG (↑)
Gap (↓)
Acc. (↑)
WG (↑)
Gap (↓)
Acc. (↑)
WG (↑)
Gap (↓)
Base CLIP
0.748
0.612
0.136
0.869
0.780
0.090
0.829
0.250
0.579
0.862
0.396
0.466
Bias-agnostic + input-specific prompts
RoboShot
0.788
0.693
0.095
0.848
0.812
0.036
0.806
0.262
0.545
0.862
0.485
0.377
SEM i
0.736
0.610
0.125
0.791
0.744
0.047
0.801
0.496
0.305
0.832
0.523
0.309
Table 3: Measuring zero-shot classification fairness on CelebA and Waterbirds. Bold : Best in setting (row group) and better than Base CLIP . Underline : Best in setting, but not improving over Base CLIP . Gray : Method is not zero-shot.
Method Variant
CelebA (Gender)
Waterbirds (Background)
Acc. (↑)
WG (↑)
Gap (↓)
Acc. (↑)
WG (↑)
Gap (↓)
SEM i Variants (Bias-Agnostic)
SEM i (Full)
0.791
0.745
0.046
0.832
0.523
0.309
– M(j)=1
0.729
0.640
0.089
0.872
0.357
0.515
– median CLIP
0.687
0.558
0.129
0.879
0.400
0.479
SEM b Variants (Bias-Aware)
Table 4: Ablation study on zero-shot classification tasks (ViT-L/14@336px). Our full methods ( SEM i and SEM b ) provide the most robust, balanced performance. Bold : Best in setting.
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Accountant
Actor
Architect
Astronaut
Audiologist
Author
Baker
Barber
Biologist
Blacksmith
Bricklayer
Bus driver
Butcher
Carpenter
Chef
Chemist
Civil engineer
Cleaner
Clerk
Coach
Comedian
Computer programmer
Construction worker
Consultant
Counselor
Dancer
Dentist
Designer
Detective
Dietitian
DJ
Doctor
Driver
Economist
Editor
Electrician
Engineer
Entrepreneur
Farmer
Firefighter
Florist
Graphic designer
Hairdresser
Historian
Interpreter
Journalist
Judge
Lawyer
Librarian
Magician
Makeup artist
Manager
Marine biologist
Mathematician
Mechanic
Model
Appendix
Table 5: Complete list of 100 professions used in both the disentanglement and qualitative studies.
Templates with {bias} and {profession} placeholders
A photo of a {bias} {profession}.
A {bias} {profession} at work.
An image of a {bias} {profession}.
An illustration of a {bias} {profession}.
A {bias} {profession}.
A studio shot of a {bias} {profession}.
A portrait of a {bias} {profession}.
A {bias} professional who works as a {profession}.
This is a {bias} {profession}.
A close-up of a {bias} {profession}.
Here is a {bias} {profession}.
A {bias} {profession} on the job.
Appendix
Table 6: Prompt templates used for the disentanglement study.
Method
ViT-B/16
ViT-L/14@336px
Race
Gender
Race
Gender
accp(↑)
accb(↑)
accb←p(↓)
accp(↑)
accb(↑)
accb←p(↓)
accp(↑)
accb(↑)
accb←p(↓)
accp(↑)
accb(↑)
accb←p(↓)
Base CLIP
1.000
1.000
0.957
1.000
1.000
0.923
1.000
1.000
0.949
1.000
1.000
0.852
SAE
0.996
1.000
0.755
0.995
0.997
0.800
0.994
0.998
0.710
0.993
0.996
0.748
Appendix
Table 7: Full Probing Results. Mean accuracies for profession prediction ( accp ), direct bias prediction ( accb ), and sequential entanglement probe ( accb←p ) across Race and Gender settings. Lower entanglement ( accb←p ) indicates better disentanglement.
Prompt
A firefighter in full gear holding a water hose.
A musician playing a guitar on a dimly lit stage.
A group of puppies tumbling and playing together.
A modern skyscraper made of glass and steel.
A golden retriever fetching a stick in a park.
A panoramic skyline of a modern city at night.
Appendix
Table 8: Examples of diverse prompts used to establish a baseline activation distribution.
Method
ViT-B/16
ViT-L/14@336px
Stereotype
Hair Color
Stereotype
Hair Color
KL (↓)
MS (↓)
KL (↓)
MS (↓)
Prec. (↑)
KL (↓)
MS (↓)
KL (↓)
MS (↓)
Prec. (↑)
Base CLIP
0.314
0.555
0.179
0.409
0.629
0.237
0.536
0.148
0.359
0.622
Bias-agnostic + input-specific prompts
RoboShot
0.189
0.355
0.144
0.244
0.633
0.195
0.394
0.276
0.429
0.675
SEM i
0.173
0.443
0.191
0.345
0.678
0.153
0.413
0.237
0.458
0.698
Appendix
Table 9: Measuring gender bias for Stereotype and Hair Color queries on CelebA. Bold : Best in setting (row group) and better than Base CLIP . Underline : Best in setting, but not improving over Base CLIP . Gray : Method is not zero-shot.
Method Variant
FairFace
UTKFace
ViT-B/16
ViT-L/14@336px
ViT-B/16
ViT-L/14@336px
Race
Gender
Race
Gender
Race
Gender
Race
Gender
KL (↓)
MS (↓)
KL (↓)
MS (↓)
KL (↓)
MS (↓)
KL (↓)
MS (↓)
KL (↓)
MS (↓)
KL (↓)
MS (↓)
KL (↓)
MS (↓)
KL (↓)
MS (↓)
SEM i Variants (Bias-Agnostic)
SEM i (Full)
0.170
0.691
0.088
0.269
0.147
0.625
0.123
0.328
0.096
0.407
0.065
0.245
0.059
0.442
0.032
0.185
– M(j)=1
0.139
0.659
0.078
0.243
0.124
0.573
0.093
0.288
0.075
0.397
0.088
0.278
0.061
0.368
0.038
0.196
Appendix
Table 10: Extended ablation study for retrieval on FairFace and UTKFace. Bold : Best in setting.
Method Variant
CelebA (Gender)
Waterbirds (Background)
ViT-B/16
ViT-L/14@336px
ViT-B/16
ViT-L/14@336px
Acc. (↑)
WG (↑)
Gap (↓)
Acc. (↑)
WG (↑)
Gap (↓)
Acc. (↑)
WG (↑)
Gap (↓)
Acc. (↑)
WG (↑)
Gap (↓)
SEM i Variants (Bias-Agnostic)
SEM i (Full)
0.736
0.611
0.125
0.791
0.745
0.046
0.801
0.498
0.303
0.832
0.523
0.309
– M(j)=1
0.734
0.609
0.125
0.729
0.640
0.089
0.834
0.210
0.624
0.872
0.357
0.515
– median CLIP
0.728
0.601
0.127
0.687
0.558
0.129
0.840
0.563
0.277
0.879
0.400
0.479
Appendix
Table 11: Extended ablation study for zero-shot classification on CelebA and Waterbirds. Bold : Best in setting.
Method Variant
ViT-B/16
ViT-L/14@336px
Stereotype
Hair Color
Stereotype
Hair Color
KL (↓)
MS (↓)
KL (↓)
MS (↓)
Prec. (↑)
KL (↓)
MS (↓)
KL (↓)
MS (↓)
Prec. (↑)
SEM i Variants (Bias-Agnostic)
SEM i (Full)
0.173
0.443
0.191
0.344
0.679
0.153
0.413
0.236
0.458
0.698
– M(j)=1
0.185
0.456
0.193
0.371
0.672
0.195
0.490
0.274
0.484
0.709
– median CLIP
0.250
0.503
0.181
0.382
0.689
0.155
0.411
0.299
0.500
0.708
Appendix
Table 12: Extended ablation study for retrieval on CelebA. Bold : Best in setting.
Method
FairFace
UTKFace
ResNet-50
ResNet-101
ResNet-50
ResNet-101
Race
Gender
Race
Gender
Race
Gender
Race
Gender
KL (↓)
MS (↓)
KL (↓)
MS (↓)
KL (↓)
MS (↓)
KL (↓)
MS (↓)
KL (↓)
MS (↓)
KL (↓)
MS (↓)
KL (↓)
MS (↓)
KL (↓)
MS (↓)
Base CLIP
0.215
0.735
0.170
0.351
0.203
0.744
0.144
0.335
0.127
0.477
0.153
0.340
0.152
0.496
0.136
0.333
Bias-agnostic + input-specific prompts
RoboShot
0.215
0.706
0.299
0.445
0.222
0.798
0.338
0.494
0.152
0.586
0.258
0.414
0.206
0.652
0.323
0.492
Appendix
Table 13: Measuring race and gender bias for Stereotype queries on FairFace and UTKFace (ResNet backbones). Bold : Best in setting (row group) and better than Base CLIP . Underline : Best in setting, but not improving over Base CLIP . Gray : Method is not zero-shot.
Method
CelebA (Gender)
Waterbirds (Background)
ResNet-50
ResNet-101
ResNet-50
ResNet-101
Acc. (↑)
WG (↑)
Gap (↓)
Acc. (↑)
WG (↑)
Gap (↓)
Acc. (↑)
WG (↑)
Gap (↓)
Acc. (↑)
WG (↑)
Gap (↓)
Base CLIP
0.820
0.768
0.053
0.689
0.502
0.188
0.837
0.394
0.442
0.801
0.499
0.301
Bias-agnostic + input-specific prompts
RoboShot
0.841
0.806
0.035
0.737
0.596
0.140
0.762
0.458
0.304
0.761
0.450
0.310
SEM i
0.835
0.799
0.036
0.811
0.758
0.052
0.851
0.557
0.295
0.843
0.581
0.262
Appendix
Table 14: Measuring zero-shot classification fairness on CelebA and Waterbirds (ResNet Backbones). Bold : Best in setting (row group) and better than Base CLIP . Underline : Best in setting, but not improving over Base CLIP . Gray : Method is not zero-shot.
Method
ResNet-50
ResNet-101
Stereotype
Hair Color
Stereotype
Hair Color
KL (↓)
MS (↓)
KL (↓)
MS (↓)
Prec. (↑)
KL (↓)
MS (↓)
KL (↓)
MS (↓)
Prec. (↑)
Base CLIP
0.389
0.622
0.187
0.367
0.735
0.300
0.560
0.205
0.414
0.718
Bias-agnostic + input-specific prompts
RoboShot
0.190
0.337
0.364
0.550
0.762
0.294
0.454
0.274
0.459
0.723
SEM i
0.050
0.193
0.246
0.369
0.508
0.041
0.185
0.301
0.508
0.688
Appendix
Table 15: Measuring gender bias for Stereotype and Hair Color queries on CelebA (ResNet Backbones). Bold : Best in setting (row group) and better than Base CLIP . Underline : Best in setting, but not improving over Base CLIP . Gray : Method is not zero-shot.
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
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.
Tangzheng Lian, Guanyu Hu, Yijing Ren +2
King’s College London · Queen Mary University of London