Fairness for Whom? Understanding the Reader's Perception of Fairness in Text Summarization

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2101.12406v2
• Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2021 04:26:52 GMT
• Title: Fairness for Whom? Understanding the Reader's Perception of Fairness in Text Summarization
• Authors: Anurag Shandilya, Abhisek Dash, Abhijnan Chakraborty, Kripabandhu Ghosh, Saptarshi Ghosh
• Abstract summary: We study the interplay between the fairness notions and how readers perceive them in textual summaries. Standard ROUGE evaluation metrics are unable to quantify the perceived (un)fairness of the summaries.
• Score: 9.136419921943235
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: With the surge in user-generated textual information, there has been a recent increase in the use of summarization algorithms for providing an overview of the extensive content. Traditional metrics for evaluation of these algorithms (e.g. ROUGE scores) rely on matching algorithmic summaries to human-generated ones. However, it has been shown that when the textual contents are heterogeneous, e.g., when they come from different socially salient groups, most existing summarization algorithms represent the social groups very differently compared to their distribution in the original data. To mitigate such adverse impacts, some fairness-preserving summarization algorithms have also been proposed. All of these studies have considered normative notions of fairness from the perspective of writers of the contents, neglecting the readers' perceptions of the underlying fairness notions. To bridge this gap, in this work, we study the interplay between the fairness notions and how readers perceive them in textual summaries. Through our experiments, we show that reader's perception of fairness is often context-sensitive. Moreover, standard ROUGE evaluation metrics are unable to quantify the perceived (un)fairness of the summaries. To this end, we propose a human-in-the-loop metric and an automated graph-based methodology to quantify the perceived bias in textual summaries. We demonstrate their utility by quantifying the (un)fairness of several summaries of heterogeneous socio-political microblog datasets.

Related papers

• Annotator in the Loop: A Case Study of In-Depth Rater Engagement to Create a Bridging Benchmark Dataset [1.825224193230824]
  We describe a novel, collaborative, and iterative annotator-in-the-loop methodology for annotation. Our findings indicate that collaborative engagement with annotators can enhance annotation methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-01T19:11:08Z)
• Overview of PerpectiveArg2024: The First Shared Task on Perspective Argument Retrieval [56.66761232081188]
  We present a novel dataset covering demographic and socio-cultural (socio) variables, such as age, gender, and political attitude, representing minority and majority groups in society. We find substantial challenges in incorporating perspectivism, especially when aiming for personalization based solely on the text of arguments without explicitly providing socio profiles. While we bootstrap perspective argument retrieval, further research is essential to optimize retrieval systems to facilitate personalization and reduce polarization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-29T03:14:57Z)
• Understanding Position Bias Effects on Fairness in Social Multi-Document Summarization [1.9950682531209158]
  We investigate the effect of group ordering in input documents when summarizing tweets from three linguistic communities. Our results suggest that position bias manifests differently in social multi-document summarization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-03T00:19:31Z)
• Fair Abstractive Summarization of Diverse Perspectives [103.08300574459783]
  A fair summary should provide a comprehensive coverage of diverse perspectives without underrepresenting certain groups. We first formally define fairness in abstractive summarization as not underrepresenting perspectives of any groups of people. We propose four reference-free automatic metrics by measuring the differences between target and source perspectives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T03:38:55Z)
• Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey [73.87651986156006]
  We present a comprehensive survey of bias evaluation and mitigation techniques for large language models (LLMs) We first consolidate, formalize, and expand notions of social bias and fairness in natural language processing. We then unify the literature by proposing three intuitive, two for bias evaluation, and one for mitigation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-02T00:32:55Z)
• Conditional Supervised Contrastive Learning for Fair Text Classification [59.813422435604025]
  We study learning fair representations that satisfy a notion of fairness known as equalized odds for text classification via contrastive learning. Specifically, we first theoretically analyze the connections between learning representations with a fairness constraint and conditional supervised contrastive objectives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-23T17:38:30Z)
• Measuring Fairness of Text Classifiers via Prediction Sensitivity [63.56554964580627]
  ACCUMULATED PREDICTION SENSITIVITY measures fairness in machine learning models based on the model's prediction sensitivity to perturbations in input features. We show that the metric can be theoretically linked with a specific notion of group fairness (statistical parity) and individual fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-16T15:00:33Z)
• Consistency and Coherence from Points of Contextual Similarity [0.0]
  ESTIME measure, recently proposed specifically for factual consistency, achieves high correlations with human expert scores. This is not a problem for current styles of summarization, but it may become an obstacle for future summarization systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-22T03:04:20Z)
• Weakly-Supervised Aspect-Based Sentiment Analysis via Joint Aspect-Sentiment Topic Embedding [71.2260967797055]
  We propose a weakly-supervised approach for aspect-based sentiment analysis. We learn sentiment, aspect> joint topic embeddings in the word embedding space. We then use neural models to generalize the word-level discriminative information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-13T21:33:24Z)

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.