mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

NLPGuard: A Framework for Mitigating the Use of Protected Attributes by NLP Classifiers

arXiv 2407.01697 ↗First posted 1 Jul 2024cs.CL cs.AI cs.HCcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

AI regulations are expected to prohibit machine learning models from using sensitive attributes during training. However, the latest Natural Language Processing (NLP) classifiers, which rely on deep learning, operate as black-box systems, complicating the detection and remediation of such misuse. Traditional bias mitigation methods in NLP aim for comparable performance across different groups based on attributes like gender or race but fail to address the underlying issue of reliance on protected attributes. To partly fix that, we introduce NLPGuard, a framework for mitigating the reliance on protected attributes in NLP classifiers. NLPGuard takes an unlabeled dataset, an existing NLP classifier, and its training data as input, producing a modified training dataset that significantly reduces dependence on protected attributes without compromising accuracy. NLPGuard is applied to three classification tasks: identifying toxic language, sentiment analysis, and occupation classification. Our evaluation shows that current NLP classifiers heavily depend on protected attributes, with up to 23% of the most predictive words associated with these attributes. However, NLPGuard effectively reduces this reliance by up to 79%, while slightly improving accuracy.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 45 of its 86 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Jul 2024.

Builds on

45 of 86 references.

References · 45

  1. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,399
  2. 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 37,240
  3. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
  4. 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,599
  5. 2016Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-based Localizationcited by 6,733
  6. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,555
  7. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,070
  8. 2023Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contextscited by 3,455
  9. 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,917
  10. 2016Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddingscited by 1,312
  11. 2018A Survey Of Methods For Explaining Black Box Modelscited by 973
  12. 2016Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biasescited by 901
33 more
  1. 2023ChatGPT Outperforms Crowd-Workers for Text-Annotation Taskscited by 870
  2. 2017Counterfactual Fairnesscited by 804
  3. 2017Automated Hate Speech Detection and the Problem of Offensive Languagecited by 736
  4. 2023Is ChatGPT a General-Purpose Natural Language Processing Task Solver?cited by 488
  5. 2020Null It Out: Guarding Protected Attributes by Iterative Nullspace Projectioncited by 455
  6. 2019Bias in Bios: A Case Study of Semantic Representation Bias in a High-Stakes Settingcited by 349
  7. 2016European Union regulations on algorithmic decision-making and a "right to explanation"cited by 344
  8. 2020An Investigation of Why Overparameterization Exacerbates Spurious Correlationscited by 310
  9. 2019Mitigating Gender Bias in Natural Language Processing: Literature Reviewcited by 287
  10. 2019Lipstick on a Pig: Debiasing Methods Cover up Systematic Gender Biases in Word Embeddings But do not Remove Themcited by 268
  11. 2019Evaluating Gender Bias in Machine Translationcited by 249
  12. 2019Racial Bias in Hate Speech and Abusive Language Detection Datasetscited by 209
  13. 2020A Survey of the State of Explainable AI for Natural Language Processingcited by 206
  14. 2021Simple data balancing achieves competitive worst-group-accuracycited by 178
  15. 2019Build it Break it Fix it for Dialogue Safety: Robustness from Adversarial Human Attackcited by 176
  16. 2020A Diagnostic Study of Explainability Techniques for Text Classificationcited by 159
  17. 2018Reducing Gender Bias in Abusive Language Detectioncited by 152
  18. 2018Explaining Explanations in AIcited by 137
  19. 2020Why Fairness Cannot Be Automated: Bridging the Gap Between EU Non-Discrimination Law and AIcited by 81
  20. 2018Privacy Preserving Machine Learning: Threats and Solutionscited by 79
  21. 2021Fairness in Credit Scoring: Assessment, Implementation and Profit Implicationscited by 65
  22. 2022Entropy-based Attention Regularization Frees Unintended Bias Mitigation from Listscited by 55
  23. 2020Demographics Should Not Be the Reason of Toxicity: Mitigating Discrimination in Text Classifications with Instance Weightingcited by 41
  24. 2023A Survey on Intersectional Fairness in Machine Learning: Notions, Mitigation, and Challengescited by 41
  25. 2020Stereotypical Bias Removal for Hate Speech Detection Task using Knowledge-based Generalizationscited by 40
  26. 2016Explaining Predictions of Non-Linear Classifiers in NLPcited by 37
  27. 2023The Unfairness of Fair Machine Learning: Levelling down and strict egalitarianism by defaultcited by 36
  28. 2019Global Aggregations of Local Explanations for Black Box modelscited by 30
  29. 2021Perturbing Inputs for Fragile Interpretations in Deep Natural Language Processingcited by 30
  30. 2021Mitigating Racial Biases in Toxic Language Detection with an Equity-Based Ensemble Frameworkcited by 19
  31. 2022Investigations of Performance and Bias in Human-AI Teamwork in Hiringcited by 16
  32. 2019What You See Is What You Get? The Impact of Representation Criteria on Human Bias in Hiringcited by 14
  33. 2022Counterfactually Augmented Data and Unintended Bias: The Case of Sexism and Hate Speech Detectioncited by 11

Built on by

Not cited yet.