Bias and Fairness in Chatbots: An Overview

Chatbots have been studied for more than half a century. With the rapid development of natural language processing (NLP) technologies in recent years, chatbots using large language models (LLMs) have received much attention nowadays. Compared with traditional ones, modern chatbots are more powerful and have been used in real-world applications. There are however, bias and fairness concerns in modern chatbot design. Due to the huge amounts of training data, extremely large model sizes, and lack of interpretability, bias mitigation and fairness preservation of modern chatbots are challenging. Thus, a comprehensive overview on bias and fairness in chatbot systems is given in this paper. The history of chatbots and their categories are first reviewed. Then, bias sources and potential harms in applications are analyzed. Considerations in designing fair and unbiased chatbot systems are examined. Finally, future research directions are discussed

Astraea: Grammar-based Fairness Testing

Software often produces biased outputs. In particular, machine learning (ML) based software are known to produce erroneous predictions when processing discriminatory inputs. Such unfair program behavior can be caused by societal bias. In the last few years, Amazon, Microsoft and Google have provided software services that produce unfair outputs, mostly due to societal bias (e.g. gender or race). In such events, developers are saddled with the task of conducting fairness testing. Fairness testing is challenging; developers are tasked with generating discriminatory inputs that reveal and explain biases. We propose a grammar-based fairness testing approach (called ASTRAEA) which leverages context-free grammars to generate discriminatory inputs that reveal fairness violations in software systems. Using probabilistic grammars, ASTRAEA also provides fault diagnosis by isolating the cause of observed software bias. ASTRAEA's diagnoses facilitate the improvement of ML fairness. ASTRAEA was evaluated on 18 software systems that provide three major natural language processing (NLP) services. In our evaluation, ASTRAEA generated fairness violations with a rate of ~18%. ASTRAEA generated over 573K discriminatory test cases and found over 102K fairness violations. Furthermore, ASTRAEA improves software fairness by ~76%, via model-retraining

Bridging Fairness and Environmental Sustainability in Natural Language Processing

Fairness and environmental impact are important research directions for the sustainable development of artificial intelligence. However, while each topic is an active research area in natural language processing (NLP), there is a surprising lack of research on the interplay between the two fields. This lacuna is highly problematic, since there is increasing evidence that an exclusive focus on fairness can actually hinder environmental sustainability, and vice versa. In this work, we shed light on this crucial intersection in NLP by (1) investigating the efficiency of current fairness approaches through surveying example methods for reducing unfair stereotypical bias from the literature, and (2) evaluating a common technique to reduce energy consumption (and thus environmental impact) of English NLP models, knowledge distillation (KD), for its impact on fairness. In this case study, we evaluate the effect of important KD factors, including layer and dimensionality reduction, with respect to: (a) performance on the distillation task (natural language inference and semantic similarity prediction), and (b) multiple measures and dimensions of stereotypical bias (e.g., gender bias measured via the Word Embedding Association Test). Our results lead us to clarify current assumptions regarding the effect of KD on unfair bias: contrary to other findings, we show that KD can actually decrease model fairness.Comment: Accepted for publication at EMNLP 202

Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey

Rapid advancements of large language models (LLMs) have enabled the processing, understanding, and generation of human-like text, with increasing integration into systems that touch our social sphere. Despite this success, these models can learn, perpetuate, and amplify harmful social biases. In this paper, we present a comprehensive survey of bias evaluation and mitigation techniques for LLMs. We first consolidate, formalize, and expand notions of social bias and fairness in natural language processing, defining distinct facets of harm and introducing several desiderata to operationalize fairness for LLMs. We then unify the literature by proposing three intuitive taxonomies, two for bias evaluation, namely metrics and datasets, and one for mitigation. Our first taxonomy of metrics for bias evaluation disambiguates the relationship between metrics and evaluation datasets, and organizes metrics by the different levels at which they operate in a model: embeddings, probabilities, and generated text. Our second taxonomy of datasets for bias evaluation categorizes datasets by their structure as counterfactual inputs or prompts, and identifies the targeted harms and social groups; we also release a consolidation of publicly-available datasets for improved access. Our third taxonomy of techniques for bias mitigation classifies methods by their intervention during pre-processing, in-training, intra-processing, and post-processing, with granular subcategories that elucidate research trends. Finally, we identify open problems and challenges for future work. Synthesizing a wide range of recent research, we aim to provide a clear guide of the existing literature that empowers researchers and practitioners to better understand and prevent the propagation of bias in LLMs

HERB: Measuring Hierarchical Regional Bias in Pre-trained Language Models

Fairness has become a trending topic in natural language processing (NLP), which addresses biases targeting certain social groups such as genders and religions. However, regional bias in language models (LMs), a long-standing global discrimination problem, still remains unexplored. This paper bridges the gap by analysing the regional bias learned by the pre-trained language models that are broadly used in NLP tasks. In addition to verifying the existence of regional bias in LMs, we find that the biases on regional groups can be strongly influenced by the geographical clustering of the groups. We accordingly propose a HiErarchical Regional Bias evaluation method (HERB) utilising the information from the sub-region clusters to quantify the bias in pre-trained LMs. Experiments show that our hierarchical metric can effectively evaluate the regional bias with respect to comprehensive topics and measure the potential regional bias that can be propagated to downstream tasks. Our codes are available at https://github.com/Bernard-Yang/HERB.Comment: Accepted at AACL 2022 as Long Finding

Measuring and Comparing Social Bias in Static and Contextual Word Embeddings

Word embeddings have been considered one of the biggest breakthroughs of deep learning for natural language processing. They are learned numerical vector representations of words where similar words have similar representations. Contextual word embeddings are the promising second-generation of word embeddings assigning a representation to a word based on its context. This can result in different representations for the same word depending on the context (e.g. river bank and commercial bank). There is evidence of social bias (human-like implicit biases based on gender, race, and other social constructs) in word embeddings. While detecting bias in static (classical or non-contextual) word embeddings is a well-researched topic, there has been limited work in detecting bias in contextual word embeddings, mostly focussed on using the Word Embedding Association Test (WEAT). This paper explores measuring social bias (gender, ethnicity, and religion) in contextual word embeddings using a number of fairness metrics, including the Relative Norm Distance (RND), the Relative Negative Sentiment Bias (RNSB) and the already mentioned WEAT. It extends the Word Embeddings Fairness Evaluation (WEFE) framework to facilitate measuring social biases in contextual embeddings and compares these with biases in static word embeddings. The results show when ranking performance over a number of fairness metrics that contextual word embedding pre-trained models BERT and RoBERTa have more social bias than static word embedding pre-trained models GloVe and Word2Vec