Papers › How I Met Your Bias: Investigating Bias Amplification in Diffusion Models

How I Met Your Bias: Investigating Bias Amplification in Diffusion Models

23 Dec 2025arXiv:2512.20233added by Syntology

Nathan Roos, Ekaterina Iakovleva, Ani Gjergji, Vito Paolo Pastore, Enzo Tartaglione

Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).

Diffusion-based generative models demonstrate state-of-the-art performance across various image synthesis tasks, yet their tendency to replicate and amplify dataset biases remains poorly understood. Although previous research has viewed bias amplification as an inherent characteristic of diffusion models, this work provides the first analysis of how sampling algorithms and their hyperparameters influence bias amplification. We empirically demonstrate that samplers for diffusion models -- commonly optimized for sample quality and speed -- have a significant and measurable effect on bias amplification. Through controlled studies with models trained on Biased MNIST, Multi-Color MNIST and BFFHQ, and with Stable Diffusion, we show that sampling hyperparameters can induce both bias reduction and amplification, even when the trained model is fixed. Source code is available at https://github.com/How-I-met-your-bias/how_i_met_your_bias.

Code

Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

15 samples harvested; 9 ran; 3 honoured the contract we drafted; 6 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 15 of the 15 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from NVlabs/edm. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Results from the paper

The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2512.20233, was issued in December 2025, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections