The Impact of Debiasing on the Performance of Language Models in Downstream Tasks is Underestimated
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Pre-trained language models trained on large-scale data have learned serious levels of social biases. Consequently, various methods have been proposed to debias pre-trained models. Debiasing methods need to mitigate only discriminatory bias information from the pre-trained models, while retaining information that is useful for the downstream tasks. In previous research, whether useful information is retained has been confirmed by the performance of downstream tasks in debiased pre-trained models. On the other hand, it is not clear whether these benchmarks consist of data pertaining to social biases and are appropriate for investigating the impact of debiasing. For example in gender-related social biases, data containing female words (e.g. ``she, female, woman''), male words (e.g. ``he, male, man''), and stereotypical words (e.g. ``nurse, doctor, professor'') are considered to be the most affected by debiasing. If there is not much data containing these words in a benchmark dataset for a target task, there is the possibility of erroneously evaluating the effects of debiasing. In this study, we compare the impact of debiasing on performance across multiple downstream tasks using a wide-range of benchmark datasets that containing female, male, and stereotypical words. Experiments show that the effects of debiasing are consistently underestimated across all tasks. Moreover, the effects of debiasing could be reliably evaluated by separately considering instances containing female, male, and stereotypical words than all of the instances in a benchmark dataset.
Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 35 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Sep 2023.
Builds on
23 of 35 references.
References · 23
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
- 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,266
- 2018GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Natural Language Understandingcited by 4,854
- 2016SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Textcited by 4,115
- 2017A Broad-Coverage Challenge Corpus for Sentence Understanding through Inferencecited by 2,665
- 2016Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddingscited by 1,304
- 2017SemEval-2017 Task 1: Semantic Textual Similarity - Multilingual and Cross-lingual Focused Evaluationcited by 998
- 2018Neural Network Acceptability Judgmentscited by 952
- 2020StereoSet: Measuring stereotypical bias in pretrained language modelscited by 911
- 2020CrowS-Pairs: A Challenge Dataset for Measuring Social Biases in Masked Language Modelscited by 703
- 2019Measuring Bias in Contextualized Word Representationscited by 275
- 2020Measuring and Reducing Gendered Correlations in Pre-trained Modelscited by 222
11 more
- 2019Gender Bias in Contextualized Word Embeddingscited by 203
- 2019Counterfactual Data Augmentation for Mitigating Gender Stereotypes in Languages with Rich Morphologycited by 200
- 2021Harms of Gender Exclusivity and Challenges in Non-Binary Representation in Language Technologiescited by 128
- 2019On Measuring and Mitigating Biased Inferences of Word Embeddingscited by 112
- 2021Debiasing Pre-trained Contextualised Embeddingscited by 107
- 2021An Empirical Survey of the Effectiveness of Debiasing Techniques for Pre-trained Language Modelscited by 96
- 2019Toward Gender-Inclusive Coreference Resolutioncited by 84
- 2021Unmasking the Mask -- Evaluating Social Biases in Masked Language Modelscited by 60
- 2022Gender Bias in Masked Language Models for Multiple Languagescited by 60
- 2022Sense Embeddings are also Biased--Evaluating Social Biases in Static and Contextualised Sense Embeddingscited by 18
- 2023Comparing Intrinsic Gender Bias Evaluation Measures without using Human Annotated Examplescited by 8
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 2; 2025: 4; 2026: 1.
7 papers.
- 2025Dissecting Bias in LLMs: A Mechanistic Interpretability Perspectivecited by 14
- 2024Likelihood-based Mitigation of Evaluation Bias in Large Language Modelscited by 9
- 2024The Gaps between Pre-train and Downstream Settings in Bias Evaluation and Debiasingcited by 5
- 2025Bias in, Bias out: Annotation Bias in Multilingual Large Language Modelscited by 4
- 2025Bias Mitigation or Cultural Commonsense? Evaluating LLMs with a Japanese Datasetcited by 2
- 2025Fair-GPTQ: Bias-Aware Quantization for Large Language Modelscited by 0
- 2026A Representation-Level Assessment of Bias Mitigation in Foundation Modelscited by 0
- 2026A Representation-Level Assessment of Bias Mitigation in Foundation Models17 Mar 2026
- 2025Bias in, Bias out: Annotation Bias in Multilingual Large Language Models18 Nov 2025
- 2025Bias Mitigation or Cultural Commonsense? Evaluating LLMs with a Japanese Dataset29 Sep 2025
- 2025Fair-GPTQ: Bias-Aware Quantization for Large Language Models18 Sep 2025
- 2025Dissecting Bias in LLMs: A Mechanistic Interpretability Perspective5 Jun 2025
- 2024Likelihood-based Mitigation of Evaluation Bias in Large Language Models25 Feb 2024
- 2024The Gaps between Pre-train and Downstream Settings in Bias Evaluation and Debiasing16 Jan 2024