Identifying Fairness Issues in Automatically Generated Testing Content
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Natural language generation tools are powerful and effective for generating content. However, language models are known to display bias and fairness issues, making them impractical to deploy for many use cases. We here focus on how fairness issues impact automatically generated test content, which can have stringent requirements to ensure the test measures only what it was intended to measure. Specifically, we review test content generated for a large-scale standardized English proficiency test with the goal of identifying content that only pertains to a certain subset of the test population as well as content that has the potential to be upsetting or distracting to some test takers. Issues like these could inadvertently impact a test taker's score and thus should be avoided. This kind of content does not reflect the more commonly-acknowledged biases, making it challenging even for modern models that contain safeguards. We build a dataset of 601 generated texts annotated for fairness and explore a variety of methods for classification: fine-tuning, topic-based classification, and prompting, including few-shot and self-correcting prompts. We find that combining prompt self-correction and few-shot learning performs best, yielding an F1 score of 0.79 on our held-out test set, while much smaller BERT- and topic-based models have competitive performance on out-of-domain data.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 22 of its 52 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Apr 2024.
Builds on
22 of 52 references.
References · 22
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,399
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
- 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,372
- 2019Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networkscited by 9,170
- 2020DeBERTa: Decoding-enhanced BERT with Disentangled Attentioncited by 2,181
- 2020Language (Technology) is Power: A Critical Survey of "Bias" in NLPcited by 956
- 2020StereoSet: Measuring stereotypical bias in pretrained language modelscited by 924
- 2022BERTopic: Neural topic modeling with a class-based TF-IDF procedurecited by 801
- 2023Promptbreeder: Self-Referential Self-Improvement Via Prompt Evolutioncited by 551
- 2018AI Fairness 360: An Extensible Toolkit for Detecting, Understanding, and Mitigating Unwanted Algorithmic Biascited by 319
- 2023"Kelly is a Warm Person, Joseph is a Role Model": Gender Biases in LLM-Generated Reference Letterscited by 199
- 2018Aequitas: A Bias and Fairness Audit Toolkitcited by 147
10 more
- 2021Cutting Down on Prompts and Parameters: Simple Few-Shot Learning with Language Modelscited by 139
- 2021On Measures of Biases and Harms in NLPcited by 81
- 2021A Survey of Race, Racism, and Anti-Racism in NLPcited by 75
- 2022Theories of "Gender" in NLP Bias Researchcited by 62
- 2022Dbias: Detecting biases and ensuring Fairness in news articlescited by 28
- 2023The BEA 2023 Shared Task on Generating AI Teacher Responses in Educational Dialoguescited by 27
- 2023Unmasking Nationality Bias: A Study of Human Perception of Nationalities in AI-Generated Articlescited by 16
- 2023Unraveling Downstream Gender Bias from Large Language Models: A Study on AI Educational Writing Assistancecited by 15
- 2022Controlled Language Generation for Language Learning Itemscited by 7
- 2022Bias at a Second Glance: A Deep Dive into Bias for German Educational Peer-Review Data Modelingcited by 6
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 0; 2026: 1.
2 papers.