StereoSet: Measuring stereotypical bias in pretrained language models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2004.09456v1
• Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 17:14:33 GMT
• Title: StereoSet: Measuring stereotypical bias in pretrained language models
• Authors: Moin Nadeem, Anna Bethke, Siva Reddy
• Abstract summary: We present StereoSet, a large-scale natural dataset in English to measure stereotypical biases in four domains. We evaluate popular models like BERT, GPT-2, RoBERTa, and XLNet on our dataset and show that these models exhibit strong stereotypical biases.
• Score: 24.020149562072127
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: A stereotype is an over-generalized belief about a particular group of people, e.g., Asians are good at math or Asians are bad drivers. Such beliefs (biases) are known to hurt target groups. Since pretrained language models are trained on large real world data, they are known to capture stereotypical biases. In order to assess the adverse effects of these models, it is important to quantify the bias captured in them. Existing literature on quantifying bias evaluates pretrained language models on a small set of artificially constructed bias-assessing sentences. We present StereoSet, a large-scale natural dataset in English to measure stereotypical biases in four domains: gender, profession, race, and religion. We evaluate popular models like BERT, GPT-2, RoBERTa, and XLNet on our dataset and show that these models exhibit strong stereotypical biases. We also present a leaderboard with a hidden test set to track the bias of future language models at https://stereoset.mit.edu

Related papers

• Spoken Stereoset: On Evaluating Social Bias Toward Speaker in Speech Large Language Models [50.40276881893513]
  This study introduces Spoken Stereoset, a dataset specifically designed to evaluate social biases in Speech Large Language Models (SLLMs) By examining how different models respond to speech from diverse demographic groups, we aim to identify these biases. The findings indicate that while most models show minimal bias, some still exhibit slightly stereotypical or anti-stereotypical tendencies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-14T16:55:06Z)
• Who is better at math, Jenny or Jingzhen? Uncovering Stereotypes in Large Language Models [9.734705470760511]
  We use GlobalBias to study a broad set of stereotypes from around the world. We generate character profiles based on given names and evaluate the prevalence of stereotypes in model outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-09T14:52:52Z)
• Are Models Biased on Text without Gender-related Language? [14.931375031931386]
  We introduce UnStereoEval (USE), a novel framework for investigating gender bias in stereotype-free scenarios. USE defines a sentence-level score based on pretraining data statistics to determine if the sentence contain minimal word-gender associations. We find low fairness across all 28 tested models, suggesting that bias does not solely stem from the presence of gender-related words.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-01T15:51:15Z)
• Stereotype Detection in LLMs: A Multiclass, Explainable, and Benchmark-Driven Approach [4.908389661988191]
  This paper introduces the Multi-Grain Stereotype (MGS) dataset, consisting of 51,867 instances across gender, race, profession, religion, and other stereotypes. We evaluate various machine learning approaches to establish baselines and fine-tune language models of different architectures and sizes. We employ explainable AI (XAI) tools, including SHAP, LIME, and BertViz, to assess whether the model's learned patterns align with human intuitions about stereotypes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-02T09:31:32Z)
• Self-Debiasing Large Language Models: Zero-Shot Recognition and Reduction of Stereotypes [73.12947922129261]
  We leverage the zero-shot capabilities of large language models to reduce stereotyping. We show that self-debiasing can significantly reduce the degree of stereotyping across nine different social groups. We hope this work opens inquiry into other zero-shot techniques for bias mitigation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-03T01:40:11Z)
• Will the Prince Get True Love's Kiss? On the Model Sensitivity to Gender Perturbation over Fairytale Texts [87.62403265382734]
  Recent studies show that traditional fairytales are rife with harmful gender biases. This work aims to assess learned biases of language models by evaluating their robustness against gender perturbations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-16T22:25:09Z)
• Debiasing Vision-Language Models via Biased Prompts [79.04467131711775]
  We propose a general approach for debiasing vision-language foundation models by projecting out biased directions in the text embedding. We show that debiasing only the text embedding with a calibrated projection matrix suffices to yield robust classifiers and fair generative models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-31T20:09:33Z)
• Towards Understanding and Mitigating Social Biases in Language Models [107.82654101403264]
  Large-scale pretrained language models (LMs) can be potentially dangerous in manifesting undesirable representational biases. We propose steps towards mitigating social biases during text generation. Our empirical results and human evaluation demonstrate effectiveness in mitigating bias while retaining crucial contextual information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-24T17:52:43Z)
• UnQovering Stereotyping Biases via Underspecified Questions [68.81749777034409]
  We present UNQOVER, a framework to probe and quantify biases through underspecified questions. We show that a naive use of model scores can lead to incorrect bias estimates due to two forms of reasoning errors. We use this metric to analyze four important classes of stereotypes: gender, nationality, ethnicity, and religion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-06T01:49:52Z)
• CrowS-Pairs: A Challenge Dataset for Measuring Social Biases in Masked Language Models [30.582132471411263]
  We introduce the Crowd Stereotype Pairs benchmark (CrowS-Pairs) CrowS-Pairs has 1508 examples that cover stereotypes dealing with nine types of bias, like race, religion, and age. We find that all three of the widely-used sentences we evaluate substantially favor stereotypes in every category in CrowS-Pairs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-30T22:38:40Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.