mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Mind Your Bias: A Critical Review of Bias Detection Methods for Contextual Language Models

arXiv 2211.08461 ↗First posted 15 Nov 2022cs.CL cs.CYcited by 6

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The awareness and mitigation of biases are of fundamental importance for the fair and transparent use of contextual language models, yet they crucially depend on the accurate detection of biases as a precursor. Consequently, numerous bias detection methods have been proposed, which vary in their approach, the considered type of bias, and the data used for evaluation. However, while most detection methods are derived from the word embedding association test for static word embeddings, the reported results are heterogeneous, inconsistent, and ultimately inconclusive. To address this issue, we conduct a rigorous analysis and comparison of bias detection methods for contextual language models. Our results show that minor design and implementation decisions (or errors) have a substantial and often significant impact on the derived bias scores. Overall, we find the state of the field to be both worse than previously acknowledged due to systematic and propagated errors in implementations, yet better than anticipated since divergent results in the literature homogenize after accounting for implementation errors. Based on our findings, we conclude with a discussion of paths towards more robust and consistent bias detection methods.

Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 49 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Nov 2022.

Builds on

24 of 49 references.

References · 24

  1. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
  2. 2022OPT: Open Pre-trained Transformer Language Modelscited by 3,464
  3. 2018Deep contextualized word representationscited by 2,285
  4. 2016Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddingscited by 1,304
  5. 2020Language (Technology) is Power: A Critical Survey of "Bias" in NLPcited by 951
  6. 2020StereoSet: Measuring stereotypical bias in pretrained language modelscited by 911
  7. 2016Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biasescited by 894
  8. 2020CrowS-Pairs: A Challenge Dataset for Measuring Social Biases in Masked Language Modelscited by 703
  9. 2018Gender Bias in Coreference Resolution: Evaluation and Debiasing Methodscited by 657
  10. 2018Gender Bias in Coreference Resolutioncited by 438
  11. 2019On Measuring Social Biases in Sentence Encoderscited by 397
  12. 2019Mitigating Gender Bias in Natural Language Processing: Literature Reviewcited by 287
12 more
  1. 2019Measuring Bias in Contextualized Word Representationscited by 275
  2. 2019Lipstick on a Pig: Debiasing Methods Cover up Systematic Gender Biases in Word Embeddings But do not Remove Themcited by 268
  3. 2017Word Embeddings Quantify 100 Years of Gender and Ethnic Stereotypescited by 251
  4. 2019Gender Bias in Contextualized Word Embeddingscited by 203
  5. 2020Social Biases in NLP Models as Barriers for Persons with Disabilitiescited by 182
  6. 2020Detecting Emergent Intersectional Biases: Contextualized Word Embeddings Contain a Distribution of Human-like Biasescited by 167
  7. 2019Black is to Criminal as Caucasian is to Police: Detecting and Removing Multiclass Bias in Word Embeddingscited by 146
  8. 2019Assessing Social and Intersectional Biases in Contextualized Word Representationscited by 134
  9. 2019Evaluating the Underlying Gender Bias in Contextualized Word Embeddingscited by 94
  10. 2020Multi-Dimensional Gender Bias Classificationcited by 80
  11. 2019Understanding Undesirable Word Embedding Associationscited by 59
  12. 2018What are the biases in my word embedding?cited by 30

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 1; 2025: 2; 2026: 2.

6 papers.