Argument from Old Man's View: Assessing Social Bias in Argumentation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2011.12014v1
• Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 10:39:44 GMT
• Title: Argument from Old Man's View: Assessing Social Bias in Argumentation
• Authors: Maximilian Splieth\"over, Henning Wachsmuth
• Abstract summary: Social bias in language poses a problem with ethical impact for many NLP applications. Recent research has shown that machine learning models trained on respective data may not only adopt, but even amplify the bias. We study the existence of social biases in large English debate portals.
• Score: 20.65183968971417
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Social bias in language - towards genders, ethnicities, ages, and other social groups - poses a problem with ethical impact for many NLP applications. Recent research has shown that machine learning models trained on respective data may not only adopt, but even amplify the bias. So far, however, little attention has been paid to bias in computational argumentation. In this paper, we study the existence of social biases in large English debate portals. In particular, we train word embedding models on portal-specific corpora and systematically evaluate their bias using WEAT, an existing metric to measure bias in word embeddings. In a word co-occurrence analysis, we then investigate causes of bias. The results suggest that all tested debate corpora contain unbalanced and biased data, mostly in favor of male people with European-American names. Our empirical insights contribute towards an understanding of bias in argumentative data sources.

Related papers

• The Devil is in the Neurons: Interpreting and Mitigating Social Biases in Pre-trained Language Models [78.69526166193236]
  Pre-trained Language models (PLMs) have been acknowledged to contain harmful information, such as social biases. We propose sc Social Bias Neurons to accurately pinpoint units (i.e., neurons) in a language model that can be attributed to undesirable behavior, such as social bias. As measured by prior metrics from StereoSet, our model achieves a higher degree of fairness while maintaining language modeling ability with low cost.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-14T15:41:06Z)
• The Impact of Debiasing on the Performance of Language Models in Downstream Tasks is Underestimated [70.23064111640132]
  We compare the impact of debiasing on performance across multiple downstream tasks using a wide-range of benchmark datasets. Experiments show that the effects of debiasing are consistently emphunderestimated across all tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-16T20:25:34Z)
• Fairness in AI Systems: Mitigating gender bias from language-vision models [0.913755431537592]
  We study the extent of the impact of gender bias in existing datasets. We propose a methodology to mitigate its impact in caption based language vision models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-03T04:33:44Z)
• Unveiling the Hidden Agenda: Biases in News Reporting and Consumption [59.55900146668931]
  We build a six-year dataset on the Italian vaccine debate and adopt a Bayesian latent space model to identify narrative and selection biases. We found a nonlinear relationship between biases and engagement, with higher engagement for extreme positions. Analysis of news consumption on Twitter reveals common audiences among news outlets with similar ideological positions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-14T18:58:42Z)
• No Word Embedding Model Is Perfect: Evaluating the Representation Accuracy for Social Bias in the Media [17.4812995898078]
  We study what kind of embedding algorithm serves best to accurately measure types of social bias known to exist in US online news articles. We collect 500k articles and review psychology literature with respect to expected social bias. We compare how models trained with the algorithms on news articles represent the expected social bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-07T15:45:52Z)
• The Tail Wagging the Dog: Dataset Construction Biases of Social Bias Benchmarks [75.58692290694452]
  We compare social biases with non-social biases stemming from choices made during dataset construction that might not even be discernible to the human eye. We observe that these shallow modifications have a surprising effect on the resulting degree of bias across various models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-18T17:58:39Z)
• Differential Bias: On the Perceptibility of Stance Imbalance in Argumentation [35.2494622378896]
  We ask whether an "absolute bias classification" is a promising goal at all. To decide whether a text has crossed the proverbial line between non-biased and biased is subjective. A prerequisite for this kind of bias model is the ability of humans to perceive relative bias differences in the first place.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-13T12:48:07Z)
• The SAME score: Improved cosine based bias score for word embeddings [49.75878234192369]
  We introduce SAME, a novel bias score for semantic bias in embeddings. We show that SAME is capable of measuring semantic bias and identify potential causes for social bias in downstream tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-28T09:28:13Z)
• Robustness and Reliability of Gender Bias Assessment in Word Embeddings: The Role of Base Pairs [23.574442657224008]
  It has been shown that word embeddings can exhibit gender bias, and various methods have been proposed to quantify this. Previous work has leveraged gender word pairs to measure bias and extract biased analogies. We show that the reliance on these gendered pairs has strong limitations. In particular, the well-known analogy "man is to computer-programmer as woman is to homemaker" is due to word similarity rather than societal bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-06T16:09:05Z)
• 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)

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.