A Keyword Based Approach to Understanding the Overpenalization of Marginalized Groups by English Marginal Abuse Models on Twitter
On the map: LLM safety and security → Safety alignment, refusal and guardrails
Abstract (arXiv)
Harmful content detection models tend to have higher false positive rates for content from marginalized groups. In the context of marginal abuse modeling on Twitter, such disproportionate penalization poses the risk of reduced visibility, where marginalized communities lose the opportunity to voice their opinion on the platform. Current approaches to algorithmic harm mitigation, and bias detection for NLP models are often very ad hoc and subject to human bias. We make two main contributions in this paper. First, we design a novel methodology, which provides a principled approach to detecting and measuring the severity of potential harms associated with a text-based model. Second, we apply our methodology to audit Twitter's English marginal abuse model, which is used for removing amplification eligibility of marginally abusive content. Without utilizing demographic labels or dialect classifiers, we are still able to detect and measure the severity of issues related to the over-penalization of the speech of marginalized communities, such as the use of reclaimed speech, counterspeech, and identity related terms. In order to mitigate the associated harms, we experiment with adding additional true negative examples and find that doing so provides improvements to our fairness metrics without large degradations in model performance.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Safety alignment, refusal and guardrails, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security. Builds on 23 of its 61 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Oct 2022.
Builds on
23 of 61 references.
References · 23
- 2019Nuanced Metrics for Measuring Unintended Bias with Real Data for Text Classificationcited by 396
- 2020Closing the AI Accountability Gap: Defining an End-to-End Framework for Internal Algorithmic Auditingcited by 380
- 2019Measurement and Fairnesscited by 299
- 2018Improving fairness in machine learning systems: What do industry practitioners need?cited by 262
- 2020Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 194
- 2020Social Biases in NLP Models as Barriers for Persons with Disabilitiescited by 182
- 2018Reducing Gender Bias in Abusive Language Detectioncited by 152
- 2019Towards a Critical Race Methodology in Algorithmic Fairnesscited by 124
- 2021On Releasing Annotator-Level Labels and Information in Datasetscited by 123
- 2021Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyondcited by 102
- 2017Measuring the Reliability of Hate Speech Annotations: The Case of the European Refugee Crisiscited by 95
- 2022Is Your Toxicity My Toxicity? Exploring the Impact of Rater Identity on Toxicity Annotationcited by 67
11 more
- 2020"What We Can't Measure, We Can't Understand": Challenges to Demographic Data Procurement in the Pursuit of Fairnesscited by 56
- 2018Racial categories in machine learningcited by 48
- 2021Everyday algorithm auditing: Understanding the power of everyday users in surfacing harmful algorithmic behaviorscited by 47
- 2021One Label, One Billion Faces: Usage and Consistency of Racial Categories in Computer Visioncited by 33
- 2021Detecting Cross-Geographic Biases in Toxicity Modeling on Social Mediacited by 31
- 2021Image Cropping on Twitter: Fairness Metrics, their Limitations, and the Importance of Representation, Design, and Agencycited by 22
- 2022De-biasing "bias" measurementcited by 20
- 2021Mitigating Racial Biases in Toxic Language Detection with an Equity-Based Ensemble Frameworkcited by 19
- 2021Reconsidering Tweets: Intervening During Tweet Creation Decreases Offensive Contentcited by 11
- 2022Measuring Disparate Outcomes of Content Recommendation Algorithms with Distributional Inequality Metricscited by 8
- 2019What is the Point of Fairness? Disability, AI and The Complexity of Justicecited by 7
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.