mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Regional Negative Bias in Word Embeddings Predicts Racial Animus--but only via Name Frequency

arXiv 2201.08451 ↗First posted 20 Jan 2022cs.CL cs.AI cs.LGcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The word embedding association test (WEAT) is an important method for measuring linguistic biases against social groups such as ethnic minorities in large text corpora. It does so by comparing the semantic relatedness of words prototypical of the groups (e.g., names unique to those groups) and attribute words (e.g., 'pleasant' and 'unpleasant' words). We show that anti-black WEAT estimates from geo-tagged social media data at the level of metropolitan statistical areas strongly correlate with several measures of racial animus--even when controlling for sociodemographic covariates. However, we also show that every one of these correlations is explained by a third variable: the frequency of Black names in the underlying corpora relative to White names. This occurs because word embeddings tend to group positive (negative) words and frequent (rare) words together in the estimated semantic space. As the frequency of Black names on social media is strongly correlated with Black Americans' prevalence in the population, this results in spurious anti-Black WEAT estimates wherever few Black Americans live. This suggests that research using the WEAT to measure bias should consider term frequency, and also demonstrates the potential consequences of using black-box models like word embeddings to study human cognition and behavior.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 40 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Jan 2022.

Builds on

16 of 40 references.

References · 16

  1. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
  2. 2013Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Spacecited by 4,346
  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. 2019Lipstick on a Pig: Debiasing Methods Cover up Systematic Gender Biases in Word Embeddings But do not Remove Themcited by 268
  6. 2017Word Embeddings Quantify 100 Years of Gender and Ethnic Stereotypescited by 251
  7. 2017All-but-the-Top: Simple and Effective Postprocessing for Word Representationscited by 205
  8. 2020Intrinsic Bias Metrics Do Not Correlate with Application Biascited by 148
  9. 2018Understanding the Origins of Bias in Word Embeddingscited by 90
  10. 2018The Geometry of Culture: Analyzing Meaning through Word Embeddingscited by 87
  11. 2019Understanding Undesirable Word Embedding Associationscited by 59
  12. 2018FRAGE: Frequency-Agnostic Word Representationcited by 47
4 more
  1. 2021Low Frequency Names Exhibit Bias and Overfitting in Contextualizing Language Modelscited by 39
  2. 2014Human language reveals a universal positivity biascited by 23
  3. 2020Machine learning as a model for cultural learning: Teaching an algorithm what it means to be fatcited by 7
  4. 2019Decoding the Style and Bias of Song Lyricscited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.