On Bias and Fairness in NLP: Investigating the Impact of Bias and Debiasing in Language Models on the Fairness of Toxicity Detection
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Language models are the new state-of-the-art natural language processing (NLP) models and they are being increasingly used in many NLP tasks. Even though there is evidence that language models are biased, the impact of that bias on the fairness of downstream NLP tasks is still understudied. Furthermore, despite that numerous debiasing methods have been proposed in the literature, the impact of bias removal methods on the fairness of NLP tasks is also understudied. In this work, we investigate three different sources of bias in NLP models, i.e. representation bias, selection bias and overamplification bias, and examine how they impact the fairness of the downstream task of toxicity detection. Moreover, we investigate the impact of removing these biases using different bias removal techniques on the fairness of toxicity detection. Results show strong evidence that downstream sources of bias, especially overamplification bias, are the most impactful types of bias on the fairness of the task of toxicity detection. We also found strong evidence that removing overamplification bias by fine-tuning the language models on a dataset with balanced contextual representations and ratios of positive examples between different identity groups can improve the fairness of the task of toxicity detection. Finally, we build on our findings and introduce a list of guidelines to ensure the fairness of the task of toxicity detection.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 40 of its 68 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 22 May 2023.
Builds on
40 of 68 references.
References · 40
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
- 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,491
- 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,266
- 2019ALBERT: A Lite BERT for Self-supervised Learning of Language Representationscited by 2,772
- 2018Model Cards for Model Reportingcited by 1,068
- 2020StereoSet: Measuring stereotypical bias in pretrained language modelscited by 911
- 2016Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biasescited by 894
- 2017Counterfactual Fairnesscited by 802
- 2020CrowS-Pairs: A Challenge Dataset for Measuring Social Biases in Masked Language Modelscited by 703
- 2017Men Also Like Shopping: Reducing Gender Bias Amplification using Corpus-level Constraintscited by 420
- 2022ToxiGen: A Large-Scale Machine-Generated Dataset for Adversarial and Implicit Hate Speech Detectioncited by 419
- 2020HateXplain: A Benchmark Dataset for Explainable Hate Speech Detectioncited by 403
28 more
- 2019On Measuring Social Biases in Sentence Encoderscited by 397
- 2019Nuanced Metrics for Measuring Unintended Bias with Real Data for Text Classificationcited by 396
- 2019Social Bias Frames: Reasoning about Social and Power Implications of Languagecited by 377
- 2020Fairness in Machine Learning: A Surveycited by 369
- 2019Bias in Bios: A Case Study of Semantic Representation Bias in a High-Stakes Settingcited by 346
- 2021Self-Diagnosis and Self-Debiasing: A Proposal for Reducing Corpus-Based Bias in NLPcited by 336
- 2019Measuring Bias in Contextualized Word Representationscited by 275
- 2019Lipstick on a Pig: Debiasing Methods Cover up Systematic Gender Biases in Word Embeddings But do not Remove Themcited by 268
- 2017Word Embeddings Quantify 100 Years of Gender and Ethnic Stereotypescited by 251
- 2020Measuring and Reducing Gendered Correlations in Pre-trained Modelscited by 222
- 2019Counterfactual Data Augmentation for Mitigating Gender Stereotypes in Languages with Rich Morphologycited by 200
- 2020Towards Debiasing Sentence Representationscited by 170
- 2022Data Cards: Purposeful and Transparent Dataset Documentation for Responsible AIcited by 169
- 2020Detecting Emergent Intersectional Biases: Contextualized Word Embeddings Contain a Distribution of Human-like Biasescited by 167
- 2018Counterfactual Fairness in Text Classification through Robustnesscited by 150
- 2020Intrinsic Bias Metrics Do Not Correlate with Application Biascited by 148
- 2019Predictive Biases in Natural Language Processing Models: A Conceptual Framework and Overviewcited by 137
- 2019Multilingual and Multi-Aspect Hate Speech Analysiscited by 133
- 201850 Years of Test (Un)fairness: Lessons for Machine Learningcited by 101
- 2022On the Intrinsic and Extrinsic Fairness Evaluation Metrics for Contextualized Language Representationscited by 75
- 2019Perturbation Sensitivity Analysis to Detect Unintended Model Biasescited by 74
- 2015Better Summarization Evaluation with Word Embeddings for ROUGEcited by 66
- 2020ETHOS: an Online Hate Speech Detection Datasetcited by 66
- 2019Attenuating Bias in Word Vectorscited by 64
- 2022Debiasing isn't enough! -- On the Effectiveness of Debiasing MLMs and their Social Biases in Downstream Taskscited by 48
- 2021Your fairness may vary: Pretrained language model fairness in toxic text classificationcited by 38
- 2022Quantifying Social Biases Using Templates is Unreliablecited by 38
- 2022Flexible text generation for counterfactual fairness probingcited by 13
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.
1 paper.