Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userQuantifying Social Biases in NLP: A Generalization and Empirical Comparison of Extrinsic Fairness Metrics
187
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Paula Czarnowska
Publication date
2021
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Measuring bias is key for better understanding and addressing unfairness in NLP/ML models. This is often done via fairness metrics which quantify the differences in a models behaviour across a range of demographic groups. In this work, we shed more light on the differences and similarities between the fairness metrics used in NLP. First, we unify a broad range of existing metrics under three generalized fairness metrics, revealing the connections between them. Next, we carry out an extensive empirical comparison of existing metrics and demonstrate that the observed differences in bias measurement can be systematically explained via differences in parameter choices for our generalized metrics.
rate research
Read More
Building equitable and inclusive NLP technologies demands consideration of whether and how social attitudes are represented in ML models. In particular, representations encoded in models often inadvertently perpetuate undesirable social biases from the data on which they are trained. In this paper, we present evidence of such undesirable biases towards mentions of disability in two different English language models: toxicity prediction and sentiment analysis. Next, we demonstrate that the neural embeddings that are the critical first step in most NLP pipelines similarly contain undesirable biases towards mentions of disability. We end by highlighting topical biases in the discourse about disability which may contribute to the observed model biases; for instance, gun violence, homelessness, and drug addiction are over-represented in texts discussing mental illness.
Widespread adoption of deep models has motivated a pressing need for approaches to interpret network outputs and to facilitate model debugging. Instance attribution methods constitute one means of accomplishing these goals by retrieving training instances that (may have) led to a particular prediction. Influence functions (IF; Koh and Liang 2017) provide machinery for doing this by quantifying the effect that perturbing individual train instances would have on a specific test prediction. However, even approximating the IF is computationally expensive, to the degree that may be prohibitive in many cases. Might simpler approaches (e.g., retrieving train examples most similar to a given test point) perform comparably? In this work, we evaluate the degree to which different potential instance attribution agree with respect to the importance of training samples. We find that simple retrieval methods yield training instances that differ from those identified via gradient-based methods (such as IFs), but that nonetheless exhibit desirable characteristics similar to more complex attribution methods. Code for all methods and experiments in this paper is available at: https://github.com/successar/instance_attributions_NLP.
Social biases on Wikipedia, a widely-read global platform, could greatly influence public opinion. While prior research has examined man/woman gender bias in biography articles, possible influences of confounding variables limit conclusions. In this work, we present a methodology for reducing the effects of confounding variables in analyses of Wikipedia biography pages. Given a target corpus for analysis (e.g. biography pages about women), we present a method for constructing a comparison corpus that matches the target corpus in as many attributes as possible, except the target attribute (e.g. the gender of the subject). We evaluate our methodology by developing metrics to measure how well the comparison corpus aligns with the target corpus. We then examine how articles about gender and racial minorities (cisgender women, non-binary people, transgender women, and transgender men; African American, Asian American, and Hispanic/Latinx American people) differ from other articles, including analyses driven by social theories like intersectionality. In addition to identifying suspect social biases, our results show that failing to control for confounding variables can result in different conclusions and mask biases. Our contributions include methodology that facilitates further analyses of bias in Wikipedia articles, findings that can aid Wikipedia editors in reducing biases, and framework and evaluation metrics to guide future work in this area.
The Word Embedding Association Test shows that GloVe and word2vec word embeddings exhibit human-like implicit biases based on gender, race, and other social constructs (Caliskan et al., 2017). Meanwhile, research on learning reusable text representations has begun to explore sentence-level texts, with some sentence encoders seeing enthusiastic adoption. Accordingly, we extend the Word Embedding Association Test to measure bias in sentence encoders. We then test several sentence encoders, including state-of-the-art methods such as ELMo and BERT, for the social biases studied in prior work and two important biases that are difficult or impossible to test at the word level. We observe mixed results including suspicious patterns of sensitivity that suggest the tests assumptions may not hold in general. We conclude by proposing directions for future work on measuring bias in sentence encoders.
Social bias in machine learning has drawn significant attention, with work ranging from demonstrations of bias in a multitude of applications, curating definitions of fairness for different contexts, to developing algorithms to mitigate bias. In natural language processing, gender bias has been shown to exist in context-free word embeddings. Recently, contextual word representations have outperformed word embeddings in several downstream NLP tasks. These word representations are conditioned on their context within a sentence, and can also be used to encode the entire sentence. In this paper, we analyze the extent to which state-of-the-art models for contextual word representations, such as BERT and GPT-2, encode biases with respect to gender, race, and intersectional identities. Towards this, we propose assessing bias at the contextual word level. This novel approach captures the contextual effects of bias missing in context-free word embeddings, yet avoids confounding effects that underestimate bias at the sentence encoding level. We demonstrate evidence of bias at the corpus level, find varying evidence of bias in embedding association tests, show in particular that racial bias is strongly encoded in contextual word models, and observe that bias effects for intersectional minorities are exacerbated beyond their constituent minority identities. Further, evaluating bias effects at the contextual word level captures biases that are not captured at the sentence level, confirming the need for our novel approach.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
