Measuring Fairness with Biased Rulers: A Survey on Quantifying Biases in Pretrained Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2112.07447v1
• Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2021 15:04:56 GMT
• Title: Measuring Fairness with Biased Rulers: A Survey on Quantifying Biases in Pretrained Language Models
• Authors: Pieter Delobelle, Ewoenam Kwaku Tokpo, Toon Calders, Bettina Berendt
• Abstract summary: An increasing awareness of biased patterns in natural language processing resources has motivated many metrics to quantify bias' and fairness' We survey the existing literature on fairness metrics for pretrained language models and experimentally evaluate compatibility. We find that many metrics are not compatible and highly depend on (i) templates, (ii) attribute and target seeds and (iii) the choice of embeddings.
• Score: 2.567384209291337
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: An increasing awareness of biased patterns in natural language processing resources, like BERT, has motivated many metrics to quantify `bias' and `fairness'. But comparing the results of different metrics and the works that evaluate with such metrics remains difficult, if not outright impossible. We survey the existing literature on fairness metrics for pretrained language models and experimentally evaluate compatibility, including both biases in language models as in their downstream tasks. We do this by a mixture of traditional literature survey and correlation analysis, as well as by running empirical evaluations. We find that many metrics are not compatible and highly depend on (i) templates, (ii) attribute and target seeds and (iii) the choice of embeddings. These results indicate that fairness or bias evaluation remains challenging for contextualized language models, if not at least highly subjective. To improve future comparisons and fairness evaluations, we recommend avoiding embedding-based metrics and focusing on fairness evaluations in downstream tasks.

Related papers

• Bias in Language Models: Beyond Trick Tests and Toward RUTEd Evaluation [55.66090768926881]
  We study the correspondence between decontextualized "trick tests" and evaluations that are more grounded in Realistic Use and Tangible Effects. We compare three de-contextualized evaluations adapted from the current literature to three analogous RUTEd evaluations applied to long-form content generation. We found no correspondence between trick tests and RUTEd evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T01:49:15Z)
• 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)
• Gender Biases in Automatic Evaluation Metrics for Image Captioning [87.15170977240643]
  We conduct a systematic study of gender biases in model-based evaluation metrics for image captioning tasks. We demonstrate the negative consequences of using these biased metrics, including the inability to differentiate between biased and unbiased generations. We present a simple and effective way to mitigate the metric bias without hurting the correlations with human judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T04:27:40Z)
• This Prompt is Measuring <MASK>: Evaluating Bias Evaluation in Language Models [12.214260053244871]
  We analyse the body of work that uses prompts and templates to assess bias in language models. We draw on a measurement modelling framework to create a taxonomy of attributes that capture what a bias test aims to measure. Our analysis illuminates the scope of possible bias types the field is able to measure, and reveals types that are as yet under-researched.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T06:28:48Z)
• Mind Your Bias: A Critical Review of Bias Detection Methods for Contextual Language Models [2.170169149901781]
  We conduct a rigorous analysis and comparison of bias detection methods for contextual language models. Our results show that minor design and implementation decisions (or errors) have a substantial and often significant impact on the derived bias scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-15T19:27:54Z)
• Challenges in Measuring Bias via Open-Ended Language Generation [1.5552869983952944]
  We analyze how specific choices of prompt sets, metrics, automatic tools and sampling strategies affect bias results. We provide recommendations for reporting biases in open-ended language generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-23T19:57:15Z)
• On the Intrinsic and Extrinsic Fairness Evaluation Metrics for Contextualized Language Representations [74.70957445600936]
  Multiple metrics have been introduced to measure fairness in various natural language processing tasks. These metrics can be roughly categorized into two categories: 1) emphextrinsic metrics for evaluating fairness in downstream applications and 2) emphintrinsic metrics for estimating fairness in upstream language representation models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-25T22:17:43Z)
• Evaluating Metrics for Bias in Word Embeddings [44.14639209617701]
  We formalize a bias definition based on the ideas from previous works and derive conditions for bias metrics. We propose a new metric, SAME, to address the shortcomings of existing metrics and mathematically prove that SAME behaves appropriately.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-15T16:07:15Z)
• Balancing out Bias: Achieving Fairness Through Training Reweighting [58.201275105195485]
  Bias in natural language processing arises from models learning characteristics of the author such as gender and race. Existing methods for mitigating and measuring bias do not directly account for correlations between author demographics and linguistic variables. This paper introduces a very simple but highly effective method for countering bias using instance reweighting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-16T23:40:28Z)
• Curious Case of Language Generation Evaluation Metrics: A Cautionary Tale [52.663117551150954]
  A few popular metrics remain as the de facto metrics to evaluate tasks such as image captioning and machine translation. This is partly due to ease of use, and partly because researchers expect to see them and know how to interpret them. In this paper, we urge the community for more careful consideration of how they automatically evaluate their models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-26T13:57:20Z)

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.