# Improving Commonsense Bias Classification by Mitigating the Influence of Demographic Terms

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.07229 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.07229/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 16 of its 28 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 11 Jun 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 16 of 16)

- [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)
- [Nuanced Metrics for Measuring Unintended Bias with Real Data for Text Classification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1903.04561/) (2019)
- [Bias in Bios: A Case Study of Semantic Representation Bias in a High-Stakes Setting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1901.09451/) (2019)
- [Towards Debiasing Sentence Representations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2007.08100/) (2020)
- [Learning Gender-Neutral Word Embeddings](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1809.01496/) (2018)
- [Detecting Emergent Intersectional Biases: Contextualized Word Embeddings Contain a Distribution of Human-like Biases](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.03955/) (2020)
- [Black is to Criminal as Caucasian is to Police: Detecting and Removing Multiclass Bias in Word Embeddings](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.04047/) (2019)
- [Bias Out-of-the-Box: An Empirical Analysis of Intersectional Occupational Biases in Popular Generative Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2102.04130/) (2021)
- [AugGPT: Leveraging ChatGPT for Text Data Augmentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.13007/) (2023)
- [Quantifying Social Biases in NLP: A Generalization and Empirical Comparison of Extrinsic Fairness Metrics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.14574/) (2021)
- [Recent Advances in Natural Language Inference: A Survey of Benchmarks, Resources, and Approaches](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.01172/) (2019)
- [Fairness and Robustness in Invariant Learning: A Case Study in Toxicity Classification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2011.06485/) (2020)
- [Lawyers are Dishonest? Quantifying Representational Harms in Commonsense Knowledge Resources](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.11320/) (2021)
- [Domain Adaptation of Transformer-Based Models using Unlabeled Data for Relevance and Polarity Classification of German Customer Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.05764/) (2022)
- [Evaluate Confidence Instead of Perplexity for Zero-shot Commonsense Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2208.11007/) (2022)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Understanding commonsense knowledge is crucial in the field of Natural Language Processing (NLP). However, the presence of demographic terms in commonsense knowledge poses a potential risk of compromising the performance of NLP models. This study aims to investigate and propose methods for enhancing the performance and effectiveness of a commonsense polarization classifier by mitigating the influence of demographic terms. Three methods are introduced in this paper: (1) hierarchical generalization of demographic terms (2) threshold-based augmentation and (3) integration of hierarchical generalization and threshold-based augmentation methods (IHTA). The first method involves replacing demographic terms with more general ones based on a term hierarchy ontology, aiming to mitigate the influence of specific terms. To address the limited bias-related information, the second method measures the polarization of demographic terms by comparing the changes in the model's predictions when these terms are masked versus unmasked. This method augments commonsense sentences containing terms with high polarization values by replacing their predicates with synonyms generated by ChatGPT. The third method combines the two approaches, starting with threshold-based augmentation followed by hierarchical generalization. The experiments show that the first method increases the accuracy over the baseline by 2.33%, and the second one by 0.96% over standard augmentation methods. The IHTA techniques yielded an 8.82% and 9.96% higher accuracy than threshold-based and standard augmentation methods, respectively.