MoESD: Mixture of Experts Stable Diffusion to Mitigate Gender Bias

Stable Diffusion, the text-to-image model in our work, generates images from text by switching diffusion process from pixel space to latent space to generate images. Given an image $x\in\mathbb{R}^{H\times W\times 3}$ in RGB space, the encoder $\mathcal{E}$ encodes $x$ into a latent representation $z=\mathcal{E}(x)$, and the decoder $D$ reconstructs the image from the latent, giving $x^{\prime}=D(z)=D(\mathcal{E}(x))$, where $z\in\mathbb{R}^{h\times w\times c}$. A domain-specific encoder $\tau_{\theta}$ projects $y$ (language prompt) to an intermediate representation $\tau_{\theta}(y)\in\mathbb{R}^{M\times d_{\tau}}$, which is then mapped to the intermediate layers of the U-Net via a cross-attention layer implementing to condition the latent $z$. Based on image-conditioning pairs, the conditional LDM is learned via Equation 2.

However when employing prompts like “a photo of a [occupation]”, the model has been shown to exhibit significant gender bias with stereotypes Friedrich et al. (2023); Chuang et al. (2023), which manifests throughout the entire process.

While research efforts have been dedicated to addressing biases in the iterative image denoising process within U-Net Ronneberger et al. (2015), the convolutional network component of Stable Diffusion Esposito et al. (2023), our investigation has revealed a distinct bias emerging after the text embedding stage, when utilizing the text encoder of different versions of Stable Diffusion. This means that bias is amplified throughout the process.

Appendix A.2 shows a visualization of the dimensionality-reduced embeddings encoded by the text encoder of two versions of Stable Diffusion¹¹1https://huggingface.co/runwayml/stable-diffusion-v1-5 ²²2https://huggingface.co/stabilityai/stable-diffusion-2-1-base using T-SNE, with prompts like “The photo of the face of a [occupation]”, where the [occupation] are from the top 8 male-biased and top 8 female-biased occupations from Fair Diffusion Friedrich et al. (2023)³³3https://github.com/ml-research/Fair-Diffusion/blob/main/results_fairface_generated_1-5.txt. There is a clear boundary between two gender-biases occupation encoded embeddings in both versions of Stable Diffusion. In other words, embeddings show gender biases regardless of whether they are encoded by CLIP or OpenCLIP Radford et al. (2021); Schuhmann et al. (2022); Cherti et al. (2023), indicating that the text encoder already contains gender biases, which then conditions the U-Net. Thus, it is not enough to mitigate biases in the latent space of the U-Net, we need to address the text-encoded bias as well.

We utilize the Pearson Correlation Coefficient to measure similarity and check statistical approximation of genders in Fair Diffusion occupations, with further details provided in Appendix A.7. If the male count for a particular occupation surpasses half of the total, we assume this occupation is male-skewed; otherwise, it is female-skewed. To assess the effectiveness of our approach when designing the Bias Identification Gate, we compare the frequency-based labels with our calculations derived from Equation 3.2 to compute accuracy. We achieve an accuracy rate of 79%, indicating that our bias measurement approximation, achieved through task reframing, aligns with both intuition and statistical trends.

The accuracy is lower when it comes to occupations such as insurance agents (details in Appendix A.9.1), as these are mostly likely at the boundary between male and female. In Table 1, we show mitigation of biases even when classifications of these challenging occupations are incorrect.

The next step is to set up the experts for the MoE approach. For that, we implement a way to personalize Stable Diffusion to guide our model towards fairness.

The intuition is to guide the model to generate more female when the original embedding exhibits the male skew and vice versa. To achieve this, we divide our training text-image pairs into two groups: male and female. We then fine-tune the model separately to generate male-biased and female-biased experts. When the gate is activated, it guides the experts according to the following rules: male skew for female-biased experts and female skew for male-biased experts. This process is called bias fine-tuning.

Adapters Hu et al. (2022); Houlsby et al. (2019); Karimi Mahabadi et al. (2021) provide a method to freeze the model and introduce a new, trainable weight matrix, which significantly reduces both the time and memory required for training.

We incorporate this method into creating bias experts, making the bias fine-tuning parameter-efficient. We freeze the parameters in the U-Net and add adapters on the cross-attention layers of the U-Net, as illustrated in Figure 1. We initialize the adapters following the principles of LoRA Hu et al. (2022): the weight parameters of the first matrix $W_{\text{down}}^{\prime}$ are determined by a Gaussian function, while the parameters of the second matrix $W_{\text{up}}^{\prime}$ are initialized as a zero matrix. Consequently, the added pathway is initially zero during training and does not impact the result, resembling the original output.

Since the adapters are randomly initialized, they do not inherit biases from Stable Diffusion fine-tuning, which makes them more effective in achieving fairness, as detailed in Section 4.2.2. By using adapters as the bias experts, we achieve better fairness scores and reduce the trainable ratio to only 5.6%.

For bias fine-tuning, we generate biased images with specific male or female characteristics so that the bias expert will learn stereotypes from the data. We employ a technique from Dreambooth Ruiz et al. (2023), utilizing a special token to help BiAs to better understand the biased data. Dreambooth adds a special token, a unique identifier, to the prompt, and uses a few fine-tuning images of a subject as input to “personalize” the model. In our work, we use the special token to “personalize” the adapters of the biased information.

In theory, the special token should not impact the results, as it is only used to remind the experts about the bias. However, due to the context differences of prompt embeddings, minor differences in results might occur when different special tokens are used for different experts and prompts.

For fine-tuning data, we generate our training image-text pairs using Stable Diffusion-XL with the following prompt: “A [gender] + [race] + [occupation].” The prompts generate 1530 images with different genders, races and occupations to ensure variety, which then fine-tune the model using the special token. The results demonstrate that the special token yields better performance than ordinary fine-tuning, as detailed in Section 4.2.2.

Our bias fine-tuning can be formalised in the following optimization process:

What distinguishes our work from that of Esposito et al. (2023) is that we only need to fine-tune a small set of data, rather than 89K prompts and 89K images, and fine-tune a small ratio of parameters, making it more training-efficient.

What distinguishes our work from Fair Diffusion Friedrich et al. (2023) is that we do not manually engage in prompt engineering (human intervention), in other words, we do not modify the prompt. The special token we add can be any token. Moreover, even without the special token, our approach still mitigates gender bias.

MoE (Mixture of Experts) Jacobs et al. (1991); Eigen et al. (2013) is an ensemble learning technique that improves performance by weighting the predictions of different experts through gate mechanisms.

In a classic MoE system, each expert is independent, and demonstrates high performance within their area of expertise. A gating mechanism is learned to adjust the weight assigned to each expert based on the input data. In contrast, in our approach, the gates and experts, defined in Section 3.3 and 3.4, are not trained. We utilize pre-trained models, which can be flexibly replaced by other pre-trained models.

We show our MoE architecture in Figure 2. What makes our gating mechanism different from traditional MoE is that we do not learn it from the data, and for the experts, we utilize pre-trained models.

To summarise, our approach is as follows: we first conduct zero-shot and unsupervised classification. We do not use the labels (the gender statistics of the 250 images for each occupation generated by the vanilla Stable Diffusion, provided by Fair Diffusion) to train the model, but only for hyperparameter selection. In other words, we only use the prompt and pretrained CLIP encoder itself. At inference, the model takes the original prompt and special token as inputs. It judges the gender skew the prompt shows, with the male skew leading to a higher probability of calling the female expert, and vice versa.

We first use the statistical data of different occupations generated by Fair Diffusion (Stable Diffusion 1.5) to select the best hyperparameters for both versions of Stable Diffusion. If the general statistical count shows more males than females, we assume that it has a male skew, and vice versa. We found that 4000 is the optimal hyperparameter $\lambda$ in Equation 1 and the subsequent derivation for version 1.5, and 100 is optimal for version 2.1. There is a large difference in the best hyperparameter between the two versions, which we attribute to the differences in the text encoder between the two versions of Stable Diffusion, which introduces different embedding gender biases in the latent space.

Next, we use Stable Diffusion XL to generate fine-tuning images data and then fine-tune our MoESD with BiAs experts by adding a special token to the original prompts (set to “sks” as in Ruiz et al. (2023)). The prompt is “A photo of the sks face of the [occupation].”

After fine-tuning, we proceed to the inference steps: There are three experts in the system: one original, one male BiAs expert, and one female BiAs expert. When inputting a prompt, we add the same special token (“sks”) as in the fine-tuning stages. The system judges the skew, and if the skew is male, we allocate 10% to the male expert, 50% to the female expert, and 40% to the original expert. Conversely, if the skew is female, we allocate 10% to the female expert, 50% to the male expert, and 40% to the original expert. These are the optimal hyperparameters for conservative mitigation within a limited search range in our experiments since we do not want the BiAs to completely change the original weights.

In this manner, we generate 100 images based on the same prompt for each of the 153 occupations.

We then employ BLIP2 Li et al. (2023) VQA task to conduct fairness evaluation and Laion-aesthetic linear classifier Schuhmann (2022) to perform aesthetic evaluation, as we discuss in the following sections. We also employ human evaluation for the aesthetic and image-description relevance evaluation.

We also launched an additional human evaluation on the quality of our generated images to further understand the results in the previous section. We selected the same 30 images generated by us from the aesthetic evaluation to assess how well each image matches its description (the prompt given to Stable Diffusion). The instruction is “How well does the image matches the image description. 10 stands for fully relevant and 0 stands for not relevant. Image description: A photo of the face of the [occupation name].”

Out of the 30 images, 10 images do not activate the bias experts, in other words, there are no changes to the vanilla weight, while 20 images activate the bias expert.

We then calculated the mean and median relevance scores for each image and conducted an analysis for all 30 images. Details of the survey are listed in Appendix A.10.

The results are shown in Table 4. We observe a small degradation in quality when our bias mitigation method is activated. However, this degradation is acceptable, as the score difference is within a range of 1 (in 10).