mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Assessing the quality and coherence of word embeddings after SCM-based intersectional bias mitigation

arXiv 2601.04393 ↗First posted 7 Jan 2026cs.AIcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Static word embeddings often absorb social biases from the text they learn from, and those biases can quietly shape downstream systems. Prior work that uses the Stereotype Content Model (SCM) has focused mostly on single-group bias along warmth and competence. We broaden that lens to intersectional bias by building compound representations for pairs of social identities through summation or concatenation, and by applying three debiasing strategies: Subtraction, Linear Projection, and Partial Projection. We study three widely used embedding families (Word2Vec, GloVe, and ConceptNet Numberbatch) and assess them with two complementary views of utility: whether local neighborhoods remain coherent and whether analogy behavior is preserved. Across models, SCM-based mitigation carries over well to the intersectional case and largely keeps the overall semantic landscape intact. The main cost is a familiar trade off: methods that most tightly preserve geometry tend to be more cautious about analogy behavior, while more assertive projections can improve analogies at the expense of strict neighborhood stability. Partial Projection is reliably conservative and keeps representations steady; Linear Projection can be more assertive; Subtraction is a simple baseline that remains competitive. The choice between summation and concatenation depends on the embedding family and the application goal. Together, these findings suggest that intersectional debiasing with SCM is practical in static embeddings, and they offer guidance for selecting aggregation and debiasing settings when balancing stability against analogy performance.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 10 of its 22 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Jan 2026.

Builds on

10 of 22 references.

References · 10

  1. 2013Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Spacecited by 4,375
  2. 2016Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddingscited by 1,312
  3. 2016ConceptNet 5.5: An Open Multilingual Graph of General Knowledgecited by 1,067
  4. 2019Lipstick on a Pig: Debiasing Methods Cover up Systematic Gender Biases in Word Embeddings But do not Remove Themcited by 268
  5. 2019Black is to Criminal as Caucasian is to Police: Detecting and Removing Multiclass Bias in Word Embeddingscited by 147
  6. 2019Attenuating Bias in Word Vectorscited by 64
  7. 2021Obtaining Better Static Word Embeddings Using Contextual Embedding Modelscited by 18
  8. 2021Stepmothers are mean and academics are pretentious: What do pretrained language models learn about you?cited by 16
  9. 2020Unequal Representations: Analyzing Intersectional Biases in Word Embeddings Using Representational Similarity Analysiscited by 12
  10. 2021WordBias: An Interactive Visual Tool for Discovering Intersectional Biases Encoded in Word Embeddingscited by 8

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.