# Semantic Properties of cosine based bias scores for word embeddings

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.15499 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.15499/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 13 of its 19 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 27 Jan 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 13 of 13)

- [HuggingFace's Transformers: State-of-the-art Natural Language Processing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.03771/) (2019)
- [Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddings](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1607.06520/) (2016)
- [Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biases](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1608.07187/) (2016)
- [On Measuring Social Biases in Sentence Encoders](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1903.10561/) (2019)
- [Measuring Bias in Contextualized Word Representations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.07337/) (2019)
- [Lipstick on a Pig: Debiasing Methods Cover up Systematic Gender Biases in Word Embeddings But do not Remove Them](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1903.03862/) (2019)
- [Intrinsic Bias Metrics Do Not Correlate with Application Bias](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2012.15859/) (2020)
- [Understanding Undesirable Word Embedding Associations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.06361/) (2019)
- [Debiasing isn't enough! -- On the Effectiveness of Debiasing MLMs and their Social Biases in Downstream Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.02938/) (2022)
- [Quantifying Social Biases Using Templates is Unreliable](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.04337/) (2022)
- [Measuring Fairness with Biased Rulers: A Survey on Quantifying Biases in Pretrained Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.07447/) (2021)
- [Assessing the Reliability of Word Embedding Gender Bias Measures](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.04732/) (2021)
- [Evaluating Metrics for Bias in Word Embeddings](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2111.07864/) (2021)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Plenty of works have brought social biases in language models to attention and proposed methods to detect such biases. As a result, the literature contains a great deal of different bias tests and scores, each introduced with the premise to uncover yet more biases that other scores fail to detect. What severely lacks in the literature, however, are comparative studies that analyse such bias scores and help researchers to understand the benefits or limitations of the existing methods. In this work, we aim to close this gap for cosine based bias scores. By building on a geometric definition of bias, we propose requirements for bias scores to be considered meaningful for quantifying biases. Furthermore, we formally analyze cosine based scores from the literature with regard to these requirements. We underline these findings with experiments to show that the bias scores' limitations have an impact in the application case.