Bipol: Multi-axes Evaluation of Bias with Explainability in Benchmark Datasets

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2301.12139v3
• Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2023 15:56:11 GMT
• Title: Bipol: Multi-axes Evaluation of Bias with Explainability in Benchmark Datasets
• Authors: Tosin Adewumi, Isabella S\"odergren, Lama Alkhaled, Sana Sabah Sabry, Foteini Liwicki and Marcus Liwicki
• Abstract summary: We investigate five English NLP benchmark datasets and two Swedish datasets for bias, along multiple axes. We use bipol, a novel multi-axes bias metric with explainability, to estimate and explain how much bias exists in these datasets.
• Score: 1.7417978715317002
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: We investigate five English NLP benchmark datasets (on the superGLUE leaderboard) and two Swedish datasets for bias, along multiple axes. The datasets are the following: Boolean Question (Boolq), CommitmentBank (CB), Winograd Schema Challenge (WSC), Wino-gender diagnostic (AXg), Recognising Textual Entailment (RTE), Swedish CB, and SWEDN. Bias can be harmful and it is known to be common in data, which ML models learn from. In order to mitigate bias in data, it is crucial to be able to estimate it objectively. We use bipol, a novel multi-axes bias metric with explainability, to estimate and explain how much bias exists in these datasets. Multilingual, multi-axes bias evaluation is not very common. Hence, we also contribute a new, large Swedish bias-labelled dataset (of 2 million samples), translated from the English version and train the SotA mT5 model on it. In addition, we contribute new multi-axes lexica for bias detection in Swedish. We make the codes, model, and new dataset publicly available.

Related papers

• Mapping Bias in Vision Language Models: Signposts, Pitfalls, and the Road Ahead [1.3995965887921709]
  We analyze demographic biases across five models and six datasets. Portrait datasets like UTKFace and CelebA are the best tools for bias detection. We introduce a more difficult version of VisoGender to serve as a more rigorous evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-17T02:03:27Z)
• VLBiasBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating Bias in Large Vision-Language Model [72.13121434085116]
  VLBiasBench is a benchmark aimed at evaluating biases in Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) We construct a dataset encompassing nine distinct categories of social biases, including age, disability status, gender, nationality, physical appearance, race, religion, profession, social economic status and two intersectional bias categories (race x gender, and race x social economic status) We conduct extensive evaluations on 15 open-source models as well as one advanced closed-source model, providing some new insights into the biases revealing from these models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T10:56:59Z)
• Data Bias According to Bipol: Men are Naturally Right and It is the Role of Women to Follow Their Lead [0.48163317476588574]
  We show that bias exists in all 10 datasets of 5 languages evaluated, including benchmark datasets on the English GLUE/SuperGLUE leaderboards. The 3 new languages give a total of almost 6 million labeled samples and we benchmark on these datasets using SotA multilingual pretrained models: mT5 and mBERT.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-07T07:24:45Z)
• Mitigating Bias for Question Answering Models by Tracking Bias Influence [84.66462028537475]
  We propose BMBI, an approach to mitigate the bias of multiple-choice QA models. Based on the intuition that a model would lean to be more biased if it learns from a biased example, we measure the bias level of a query instance. We show that our method could be applied to multiple QA formulations across multiple bias categories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-13T00:49:09Z)
• Keeping Up with the Language Models: Systematic Benchmark Extension for Bias Auditing [33.25539075550122]
  We extend an existing bias benchmark for NLI using a combination of LM-generated lexical variations, adversarial filtering, and human validation. We show that BBNLI-next reduces the accuracy of state-of-the-art NLI models from 95.3% to a strikingly low 57.5%. We propose bias measures that take into account both bias and model brittleness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T01:02:45Z)
• Bipol: A Novel Multi-Axes Bias Evaluation Metric with Explainability for NLP [0.276240219662896]
  We introduce bipol, a new metric with explainability, for estimating social bias in text data. In a step to address this challenge we create a novel metric that involves a two-step process. We create a large dataset for training models in bias detection and make it publicly available.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-08T14:45:15Z)
• "I'm sorry to hear that": Finding New Biases in Language Models with a Holistic Descriptor Dataset [12.000335510088648]
  We present a new, more inclusive bias measurement dataset, HolisticBias, which includes nearly 600 descriptor terms across 13 different demographic axes. HolisticBias was assembled in a participatory process including experts and community members with lived experience of these terms. We demonstrate that HolisticBias is effective at measuring previously undetectable biases in token likelihoods from language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-18T20:37:25Z)
• Unbiased Math Word Problems Benchmark for Mitigating Solving Bias [72.8677805114825]
  Current solvers exist solving bias which consists of data bias and learning bias due to biased dataset and improper training strategy. Our experiments verify MWP solvers are easy to be biased by the biased training datasets which do not cover diverse questions for each problem narrative of all MWPs. An MWP can be naturally solved by multiple equivalent equations while current datasets take only one of the equivalent equations as ground truth.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-17T06:07:04Z)
• Pseudo Bias-Balanced Learning for Debiased Chest X-ray Classification [57.53567756716656]
  We study the problem of developing debiased chest X-ray diagnosis models without knowing exactly the bias labels. We propose a novel algorithm, pseudo bias-balanced learning, which first captures and predicts per-sample bias labels. Our proposed method achieved consistent improvements over other state-of-the-art approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-18T11:02:18Z)
• 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)
• Towards Robustifying NLI Models Against Lexical Dataset Biases [94.79704960296108]
  This paper explores both data-level and model-level debiasing methods to robustify models against lexical dataset biases. First, we debias the dataset through data augmentation and enhancement, but show that the model bias cannot be fully removed via this method. The second approach employs a bag-of-words sub-model to capture the features that are likely to exploit the bias and prevents the original model from learning these biased features.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-10T17:56:10Z)

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.