Comparing Intrinsic Gender Bias Evaluation Measures without using Human Annotated Examples
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Numerous types of social biases have been identified in pre-trained language models (PLMs), and various intrinsic bias evaluation measures have been proposed for quantifying those social biases. Prior works have relied on human annotated examples to compare existing intrinsic bias evaluation measures. However, this approach is not easily adaptable to different languages nor amenable to large scale evaluations due to the costs and difficulties when recruiting human annotators. To overcome this limitation, we propose a method to compare intrinsic gender bias evaluation measures without relying on human-annotated examples. Specifically, we create multiple bias-controlled versions of PLMs using varying amounts of male vs. female gendered sentences, mined automatically from an unannotated corpus using gender-related word lists. Next, each bias-controlled PLM is evaluated using an intrinsic bias evaluation measure, and the rank correlation between the computed bias scores and the gender proportions used to fine-tune the PLMs is computed. Experiments on multiple corpora and PLMs repeatedly show that the correlations reported by our proposed method that does not require human annotated examples are comparable to those computed using human annotated examples in prior work.
Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 28 of its 32 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Jan 2023.
Builds on
28 of 32 references.
References · 28
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,399
- 2019ALBERT: A Lite BERT for Self-supervised Learning of Language Representationscited by 2,790
- 2016Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddingscited by 1,312
- 2015Aligning Books and Movies: Towards Story-like Visual Explanations by Watching Movies and Reading Bookscited by 1,043
- 2020StereoSet: Measuring stereotypical bias in pretrained language modelscited by 924
- 2016Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biasescited by 901
- 2020CrowS-Pairs: A Challenge Dataset for Measuring Social Biases in Masked Language Modelscited by 710
- 2020Null It Out: Guarding Protected Attributes by Iterative Nullspace Projectioncited by 455
- 2021BOLD: Dataset and Metrics for Measuring Biases in Open-Ended Language Generationcited by 412
- 2019On Measuring Social Biases in Sentence Encoderscited by 398
- 2021Self-Diagnosis and Self-Debiasing: A Proposal for Reducing Corpus-Based Bias in NLPcited by 337
- 2019Measuring Bias in Contextualized Word Representationscited by 276
16 more
- 2018Examining Gender and Race Bias in Two Hundred Sentiment Analysis Systemscited by 234
- 2020Measuring and Reducing Gendered Correlations in Pre-trained Modelscited by 224
- 2021Debiasing Pre-trained Contextualised Embeddingscited by 107
- 2018Understanding the Origins of Bias in Word Embeddingscited by 91
- 2021On Measures of Biases and Harms in NLPcited by 81
- 2019Gender-preserving Debiasing for Pre-trained Word Embeddingscited by 61
- 2021Unmasking the Mask -- Evaluating Social Biases in Masked Language Modelscited by 60
- 2022Gender Bias in Masked Language Models for Multiple Languagescited by 60
- 2019Understanding Undesirable Word Embedding Associationscited by 59
- 2020Gender Bias in Multilingual Embeddings and Cross-Lingual Transfercited by 55
- 2022Debiasing isn't enough! -- On the Effectiveness of Debiasing MLMs and their Social Biases in Downstream Taskscited by 48
- 2022Choose Your Lenses: Flaws in Gender Bias Evaluationcited by 29
- 2021Dictionary-based Debiasing of Pre-trained Word Embeddingscited by 24
- 2022Sense Embeddings are also Biased--Evaluating Social Biases in Static and Contextualised Sense Embeddingscited by 18
- 2020Autoencoding Improves Pre-trained Word Embeddingscited by 11
- 2022Gender Bias in Meta-Embeddingscited by 6
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 5; 2024: 3.
8 papers.
- 2023Sociodemographic Bias in Language Models: A Survey and Forward Pathcited by 28
- 2023Evaluating Gender Bias of Pre-trained Language Models in Natural Language Inference by Considering All Labelscited by 16
- 2023The Impact of Debiasing on the Performance of Language Models in Downstream Tasks is Underestimatedcited by 7
- 2023Controlled Generation with Prompt Insertion for Natural Language Explanations in Grammatical Error Correctioncited by 7
- 2023Solving NLP Problems through Human-System Collaboration: A Discussion-based Approachcited by 5
- 2024The Gaps between Pre-train and Downstream Settings in Bias Evaluation and Debiasingcited by 5
- 2024Eagle: Ethical Dataset Given from Real Interactionscited by 4
- 2024Evaluating Short-Term Temporal Fluctuations of Social Biases in Social Media Data and Masked Language Modelscited by 3
- 2024Evaluating Short-Term Temporal Fluctuations of Social Biases in Social Media Data and Masked Language Models19 Jun 2024
- 2024Eagle: Ethical Dataset Given from Real Interactions22 Feb 2024
- 2024The Gaps between Pre-train and Downstream Settings in Bias Evaluation and Debiasing16 Jan 2024
- 2023Controlled Generation with Prompt Insertion for Natural Language Explanations in Grammatical Error Correction20 Sep 2023
- 2023Evaluating Gender Bias of Pre-trained Language Models in Natural Language Inference by Considering All Labels18 Sep 2023
- 2023The Impact of Debiasing on the Performance of Language Models in Downstream Tasks is Underestimated16 Sep 2023
- 2023Sociodemographic Bias in Language Models: A Survey and Forward Path13 Jun 2023
- 2023Solving NLP Problems through Human-System Collaboration: A Discussion-based Approach19 May 2023