On Measuring and Mitigating Biased Inferences of Word Embeddings

Word embeddings carry stereotypical connotations from the text they are trained on, which can lead to invalid inferences in downstream models that rely on them. We use this observation to design a mechanism for measuring stereotypes using the task of natural language inference. We demonstrate a reduction in invalid inferences via bias mitigation strategies on static word embeddings (GloVe). Further, we show that for gender bias, these techniques extend to contextualized embeddings when applied selectively only to the static components of contextualized embeddings (ELMo, BERT)

Language (Technology) is Power: A Critical Survey of "Bias" in NLP

We survey 146 papers analyzing "bias" in NLP systems, finding that their motivations are often vague, inconsistent, and lacking in normative reasoning, despite the fact that analyzing "bias" is an inherently normative process. We further find that these papers' proposed quantitative techniques for measuring or mitigating "bias" are poorly matched to their motivations and do not engage with the relevant literature outside of NLP. Based on these findings, we describe the beginnings of a path forward by proposing three recommendations that should guide work analyzing "bias" in NLP systems. These recommendations rest on a greater recognition of the relationships between language and social hierarchies, encouraging researchers and practitioners to articulate their conceptualizations of "bias"---i.e., what kinds of system behaviors are harmful, in what ways, to whom, and why, as well as the normative reasoning underlying these statements---and to center work around the lived experiences of members of communities affected by NLP systems, while interrogating and reimagining the power relations between technologists and such communities

Survey on Sociodemographic Bias in Natural Language Processing

Deep neural networks often learn unintended biases during training, which might have harmful effects when deployed in real-world settings. This paper surveys 209 papers on bias in NLP models, most of which address sociodemographic bias. To better understand the distinction between bias and real-world harm, we turn to ideas from psychology and behavioral economics to propose a definition for sociodemographic bias. We identify three main categories of NLP bias research: types of bias, quantifying bias, and debiasing. We conclude that current approaches on quantifying bias face reliability issues, that many of the bias metrics do not relate to real-world biases, and that current debiasing techniques are superficial and hide bias rather than removing it. Finally, we provide recommendations for future work.Comment: 23 pages, 1 figur

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

Survey of Social Bias in Vision-Language Models

In recent years, the rapid advancement of machine learning (ML) models, particularly transformer-based pre-trained models, has revolutionized Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Computer Vision (CV) fields. However, researchers have discovered that these models can inadvertently capture and reinforce social biases present in their training datasets, leading to potential social harms, such as uneven resource allocation and unfair representation of specific social groups. Addressing these biases and ensuring fairness in artificial intelligence (AI) systems has become a critical concern in the ML community. The recent introduction of pre-trained vision-and-language (VL) models in the emerging multimodal field demands attention to the potential social biases present in these models as well. Although VL models are susceptible to social bias, there is a limited understanding compared to the extensive discussions on bias in NLP and CV. This survey aims to provide researchers with a high-level insight into the similarities and differences of social bias studies in pre-trained models across NLP, CV, and VL. By examining these perspectives, the survey aims to offer valuable guidelines on how to approach and mitigate social bias in both unimodal and multimodal settings. The findings and recommendations presented here can benefit the ML community, fostering the development of fairer and non-biased AI models in various applications and research endeavors

A Survey on Fairness in Large Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) have shown powerful performance and development prospect and are widely deployed in the real world. However, LLMs can capture social biases from unprocessed training data and propagate the biases to downstream tasks. Unfair LLM systems have undesirable social impacts and potential harms. In this paper, we provide a comprehensive review of related research on fairness in LLMs. First, for medium-scale LLMs, we introduce evaluation metrics and debiasing methods from the perspectives of intrinsic bias and extrinsic bias, respectively. Then, for large-scale LLMs, we introduce recent fairness research, including fairness evaluation, reasons for bias, and debiasing methods. Finally, we discuss and provide insight on the challenges and future directions for the development of fairness in LLMs.Comment: 12 pages, 2 figures, 101 reference