mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Centering the Margins: Outlier-Based Identification of Harmed Populations in Toxicity Detection

arXiv 2305.14735 ↗First posted 24 May 2023cs.CL cs.AI cs.LGcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The impact of AI models on marginalized communities has traditionally been measured by identifying performance differences between specified demographic subgroups. Though this approach aims to center vulnerable groups, it risks obscuring patterns of harm faced by intersectional subgroups or shared across multiple groups. To address this, we draw on theories of marginalization from disability studies and related disciplines, which state that people farther from the norm face greater adversity, to consider the "margins" in the domain of toxicity detection. We operationalize the "margins" of a dataset by employing outlier detection to identify text about people with demographic attributes distant from the "norm". We find that model performance is consistently worse for demographic outliers, with mean squared error (MSE) between outliers and non-outliers up to 70.4% worse across toxicity types. It is also worse for text outliers, with a MSE up to 68.4% higher for outliers than non-outliers. We also find text and demographic outliers to be particularly susceptible to errors in the classification of severe toxicity and identity attacks. Compared to analysis of disparities using traditional demographic breakdowns, we find that our outlier analysis frequently surfaces greater harms faced by a larger, more intersectional group, which suggests that outlier analysis is particularly beneficial for identifying harms against those groups.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 54 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 May 2023.

Builds on

17 of 54 references.

References · 17

  1. 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,000
  2. 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,911
  3. 2020HateXplain: A Benchmark Dataset for Explainable Hate Speech Detectioncited by 403
  4. 2017Preventing Fairness Gerrymandering: Auditing and Learning for Subgroup Fairnesscited by 381
  5. 2020Closing the AI Accountability Gap: Defining an End-to-End Framework for Internal Algorithmic Auditingcited by 380
  6. 2019Social Bias Frames: Reasoning about Social and Power Implications of Languagecited by 377
  7. 2020Learning from the Worst: Dynamically Generated Datasets to Improve Online Hate Detectioncited by 217
  8. 2021Latent Hatred: A Benchmark for Understanding Implicit Hate Speechcited by 216
  9. 2019Racial Bias in Hate Speech and Abusive Language Detection Datasetscited by 208
  10. 2020Social Biases in NLP Models as Barriers for Persons with Disabilitiescited by 182
  11. 2017Understanding Abuse: A Typology of Abusive Language Detection Subtaskscited by 115
  12. 2019Assessing Algorithmic Fairness with Unobserved Protected Class Using Data Combinationcited by 79
5 more
  1. 2018Conversations Gone Awry: Detecting Early Signs of Conversational Failurecited by 73
  2. 2021Designing Disaggregated Evaluations of AI Systems: Choices, Considerations, and Tradeoffscited by 48
  3. 2022GlobEnc: Quantifying Global Token Attribution by Incorporating the Whole Encoder Layer in Transformerscited by 44
  4. 2017Like trainer, like bot? Inheritance of bias in algorithmic content moderationcited by 34
  5. 2021Mitigating Racial Biases in Toxic Language Detection with an Equity-Based Ensemble Frameworkcited by 19

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.

1 paper.