mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

A methodology to characterize bias and harmful stereotypes in natural language processing in Latin America

arXiv 2207.06591 ↗First posted 14 Jul 2022cs.CL cs.AIcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Automated decision-making systems, especially those based on natural language processing, are pervasive in our lives. They are not only behind the internet search engines we use daily, but also take more critical roles: selecting candidates for a job, determining suspects of a crime, diagnosing autism and more. Such automated systems make errors, which may be harmful in many ways, be it because of the severity of the consequences (as in health issues) or because of the sheer number of people they affect. When errors made by an automated system affect a population more than others, we call the system textitbiased. Most modern natural language technologies are based on artifacts obtained from enormous volumes of text using machine learning, namely language models and word embeddings. Since they are created by applying subsymbolic machine learning, mostly artificial neural networks, they are opaque and practically uninterpretable by direct inspection, thus making it very difficult to audit them. In this paper, we present a methodology that spells out how social scientists, domain experts, and machine learning experts can collaboratively explore biases and harmful stereotypes in word embeddings and large language models. Our methodology is based on the following principles: * focus on the linguistic manifestations of discrimination on word embeddings and language models, not on the mathematical properties of the models * reduce the technical barrier for discrimination experts%, be it social scientists, domain experts or other * characterize through a qualitative exploratory process in addition to a metric-based approach * address mitigation as part of the training process, not as an afterthought

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 46 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Jul 2022.

Builds on

22 of 46 references.

References · 22

  1. 2016Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddingscited by 1,304
  2. 2020Language (Technology) is Power: A Critical Survey of "Bias" in NLPcited by 951
  3. 2016Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biasescited by 894
  4. 2019Lipstick on a Pig: Debiasing Methods Cover up Systematic Gender Biases in Word Embeddings But do not Remove Themcited by 268
  5. 2017Word Embeddings Quantify 100 Years of Gender and Ethnic Stereotypescited by 251
  6. 2019The What-If Tool: Interactive Probing of Machine Learning Modelscited by 207
  7. 2019Gender Bias in Contextualized Word Embeddingscited by 203
  8. 2020Detecting Emergent Intersectional Biases: Contextualized Word Embeddings Contain a Distribution of Human-like Biasescited by 167
  9. 2019Queens are Powerful too: Mitigating Gender Bias in Dialogue Generationcited by 152
  10. 2020The Language Interpretability Tool: Extensible, Interactive Visualizations and Analysis for NLP Modelscited by 125
  11. 2018Understanding the Origins of Bias in Word Embeddingscited by 90
  12. 2021A Survey of Race, Racism, and Anti-Racism in NLPcited by 74
10 more
  1. 2019Examining Gender Bias in Languages with Grammatical Gendercited by 40
  2. 2019Are We Consistently Biased? Multidimensional Analysis of Biases in Distributional Word Vectorscited by 31
  3. 2019Fair is Better than Sensational:Man is to Doctor as Woman is to Doctorcited by 27
  4. 2020Mitigating Gender Bias Amplification in Distribution by Posterior Regularizationcited by 27
  5. 2021Dictionary-based Debiasing of Pre-trained Word Embeddingscited by 24
  6. 2019Debiasing Embeddings for Reduced Gender Bias in Text Classificationcited by 19
  7. 2019How does Grammatical Gender Affect Noun Representations in Gender-Marking Languages?cited by 14
  8. 2021WordBias: An Interactive Visual Tool for Discovering Intersectional Biases Encoded in Word Embeddingscited by 8
  9. 2017Redefining Context Windows for Word Embedding Models: An Experimental Studycited by 3
  10. 2021VERB: Visualizing and Interpreting Bias Mitigation Techniques for Word Representationscited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 0; 2026: 1.

2 papers.