mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Marked Attribute Bias in Natural Language Inference

arXiv 2109.14039 ↗First posted 28 Sep 2021cs.CLcited by 6

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Reporting and providing test sets for harmful bias in NLP applications is essential for building a robust understanding of the current problem. We present a new observation of gender bias in a downstream NLP application: marked attribute bias in natural language inference. Bias in downstream applications can stem from training data, word embeddings, or be amplified by the model in use. However, focusing on biased word embeddings is potentially the most impactful first step due to their universal nature. Here we seek to understand how the intrinsic properties of word embeddings contribute to this observed marked attribute effect, and whether current post-processing methods address the bias successfully. An investigation of the current debiasing landscape reveals two open problems: none of the current debiased embeddings mitigate the marked attribute error, and none of the intrinsic bias measures are predictive of the marked attribute effect. By noticing that a new type of intrinsic bias measure correlates meaningfully with the marked attribute effect, we propose a new postprocessing debiasing scheme for static word embeddings. The proposed method applied to existing embeddings achieves new best results on the marked attribute bias test set. See https://github.com/hillary-dawkins/MAB.

Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Sep 2021.

Builds on

20 of 28 references.

References · 20

  1. 2013Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Spacecited by 4,346
  2. 2013Distributed Representations of Words and Phrases and their Compositionalitycited by 3,462
  3. 2015A large annotated corpus for learning natural language inferencecited by 1,837
  4. 2016Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddingscited by 1,304
  5. 2016Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biasescited by 894
  6. 2018Gender Bias in Coreference Resolution: Evaluation and Debiasing Methodscited by 657
  7. 2020Null It Out: Guarding Protected Attributes by Iterative Nullspace Projectioncited by 442
  8. 2019Mitigating Gender Bias in Natural Language Processing: Literature Reviewcited by 287
  9. 2019Lipstick on a Pig: Debiasing Methods Cover up Systematic Gender Biases in Word Embeddings But do not Remove Themcited by 268
  10. 2016A Decomposable Attention Model for Natural Language Inferencecited by 214
  11. 2014SimLex-999: Evaluating Semantic Models with (Genuine) Similarity Estimationcited by 170
  12. 2018Learning Gender-Neutral Word Embeddingscited by 169
8 more
  1. 2019On Measuring and Mitigating Biased Inferences of Word Embeddingscited by 112
  2. 2019Gender-preserving Debiasing for Pre-trained Word Embeddingscited by 61
  3. 2020OSCaR: Orthogonal Subspace Correction and Rectification of Biases in Word Embeddingscited by 40
  4. 2019A General Framework for Implicit and Explicit Debiasing of Distributional Word Vector Spacescited by 36
  5. 2020Double-Hard Debias: Tailoring Word Embeddings for Gender Bias Mitigationcited by 36
  6. 2020Nurse is Closer to Woman than Surgeon? Mitigating Gender-Biased Proximities in Word Embeddingscited by 20
  7. 2017How to evaluate word embeddings? On importance of data efficiency and simple supervised taskscited by 12
  8. 2019Decision-Directed Data Decompositioncited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2022: 2; 2023: 3; 2024: 1.

6 papers.