mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Identification of Bias Against People with Disabilities in Sentiment Analysis and Toxicity Detection Models

arXiv 2111.13259 ↗First posted 25 Nov 2021cs.CL cs.AIcited by 13

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Sociodemographic biases are a common problem for natural language processing, affecting the fairness and integrity of its applications. Within sentiment analysis, these biases may undermine sentiment predictions for texts that mention personal attributes that unbiased human readers would consider neutral. Such discrimination can have great consequences in the applications of sentiment analysis both in the public and private sectors. For example, incorrect inferences in applications like online abuse and opinion analysis in social media platforms can lead to unwanted ramifications, such as wrongful censoring, towards certain populations. In this paper, we address the discrimination against people with disabilities, PWD, done by sentiment analysis and toxicity classification models. We provide an examination of sentiment and toxicity analysis models to understand in detail how they discriminate PWD. We present the Bias Identification Test in Sentiments (BITS), a corpus of 1,126 sentences designed to probe sentiment analysis models for biases in disability. We use this corpus to demonstrate statistically significant biases in four widely used sentiment analysis tools (TextBlob, VADER, Google Cloud Natural Language API and DistilBERT) and two toxicity analysis models trained to predict toxic comments on Jigsaw challenges (Toxic comment classification and Unintended Bias in Toxic comments). The results show that all exhibit strong negative biases on sentences that mention disability. We publicly release BITS Corpus for others to identify potential biases against disability in any sentiment analysis tools and also to update the corpus to be used as a test for other sociodemographic variables as well.

Key facts. Cited by 13 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 14 of its 52 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Nov 2021.

Builds on

14 of 52 references.

References · 14

  1. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
  2. 2019DistilBERT, a distilled version of BERT: smaller, faster, cheaper and lightercited by 4,243
  3. 2016Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddingscited by 1,304
  4. 2016Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biasescited by 894
  5. 2019The Woman Worked as a Babysitter: On Biases in Language Generationcited by 540
  6. 2019Measuring Bias in Contextualized Word Representationscited by 275
  7. 2018Examining Gender and Race Bias in Two Hundred Sentiment Analysis Systemscited by 234
  8. 2020Social Biases in NLP Models as Barriers for Persons with Disabilitiescited by 182
  9. 2018Reducing Gender Bias in Abusive Language Detectioncited by 152
  10. 2020Toxicity Detection: Does Context Really Matter?cited by 93
  11. 2020Contextualizing Hate Speech Classifiers with Post-hoc Explanationcited by 84
  12. 2019Toward Fairness in AI for People with Disabilities: A Research Roadmapcited by 21
2 more
  1. 2018AI Fairness for People with Disabilities: Point of Viewcited by 16
  2. 2018Machine Learning Suites for Online Toxicity Detectioncited by 12

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2022: 2; 2023: 8; 2024: 2; 2025: 1.

13 papers.

Sort:

By area: