Debiasing should be Good and Bad: Measuring the Consistency of Debiasing Techniques in Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.14307v1
• Date: Tue, 23 May 2023 17:45:54 GMT
• Title: Debiasing should be Good and Bad: Measuring the Consistency of Debiasing Techniques in Language Models
• Authors: Robert Morabito, Jad Kabbara, Ali Emami
• Abstract summary: Debiasing methods seek to mitigate the tendency of Language Models (LMs) to occasionally output toxic or inappropriate text. We propose a standardized protocol which distinguishes methods that yield not only desirable results, but are also consistent with their mechanisms and specifications. We show that our protocol provides essential insights into the generalizability and interpretability of debiasing methods that may otherwise go overlooked.
• Score: 9.90597427711145
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Debiasing methods that seek to mitigate the tendency of Language Models (LMs) to occasionally output toxic or inappropriate text have recently gained traction. In this paper, we propose a standardized protocol which distinguishes methods that yield not only desirable results, but are also consistent with their mechanisms and specifications. For example, we ask, given a debiasing method that is developed to reduce toxicity in LMs, if the definition of toxicity used by the debiasing method is reversed, would the debiasing results also be reversed? We used such considerations to devise three criteria for our new protocol: Specification Polarity, Specification Importance, and Domain Transferability. As a case study, we apply our protocol to a popular debiasing method, Self-Debiasing, and compare it to one we propose, called Instructive Debiasing, and demonstrate that consistency is as important an aspect to debiasing viability as is simply a desirable result. We show that our protocol provides essential insights into the generalizability and interpretability of debiasing methods that may otherwise go overlooked.

Related papers

• ALBAR: Adversarial Learning approach to mitigate Biases in Action Recognition [52.537021302246664]
  Action recognition models often suffer from background bias (i.e., inferring actions based on background cues) and foreground bias (i.e., relying on subject appearance) We propose ALBAR, a novel adversarial training method that mitigates foreground and background biases without requiring specialized knowledge of the bias attributes. We evaluate our method on established background and foreground bias protocols, setting a new state-of-the-art and strongly improving combined debiasing performance by over 12% on HMDB51.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-31T20:47:06Z)
• Unlabeled Debiasing in Downstream Tasks via Class-wise Low Variance Regularization [13.773597081543185]
  We introduce a novel debiasing regularization technique based on the class-wise variance of embeddings. Our method does not require attribute labels and targets any attribute, thus addressing the shortcomings of existing debiasing methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-29T03:56:50Z)
• Projective Methods for Mitigating Gender Bias in Pre-trained Language Models [10.418595661963062]
  Projective methods are fast to implement, use a small number of saved parameters, and make no updates to the existing model parameters. We find that projective methods can be effective at both intrinsic bias and downstream bias mitigation, but that the two outcomes are not necessarily correlated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-27T17:49:31Z)
• Bias in Language Models: Beyond Trick Tests and Toward RUTEd Evaluation [49.3814117521631]
  Standard benchmarks of bias and fairness in large language models (LLMs) measure the association between social attributes implied in user prompts and short responses. We develop analogous RUTEd evaluations from three contexts of real-world use. We find that standard bias metrics have no significant correlation with the more realistic bias metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T01:49:15Z)
• Mitigating Biases for Instruction-following Language Models via Bias Neurons Elimination [54.865941973768905]
  We propose a novel and practical bias mitigation method, CRISPR, to eliminate bias neurons of language models in instruction-following settings. CRISPR automatically determines biased outputs and categorizes neurons that affect the biased outputs as bias neurons using an explainability method. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of our method in mitigating biases under zero-shot instruction-following settings without losing the model's task performance and existing knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T07:16:55Z)
• Balancing Unobserved Confounding with a Few Unbiased Ratings in Debiased Recommendations [4.960902915238239]
  We propose a theoretically guaranteed model-agnostic balancing approach that can be applied to any existing debiasing method. The proposed approach makes full use of unbiased data by alternatively correcting model parameters learned with biased data, and adaptively learning balance coefficients of biased samples for further debiasing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-17T08:56:55Z)
• Information-Theoretic Bias Reduction via Causal View of Spurious Correlation [71.9123886505321]
  We propose an information-theoretic bias measurement technique through a causal interpretation of spurious correlation. We present a novel debiasing framework against the algorithmic bias, which incorporates a bias regularization loss. The proposed bias measurement and debiasing approaches are validated in diverse realistic scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-10T01:19:31Z)
• Mitigating Biases in Toxic Language Detection through Invariant Rationalization [70.36701068616367]
  biases toward some attributes, including gender, race, and dialect, exist in most training datasets for toxicity detection. We propose to use invariant rationalization (InvRat), a game-theoretic framework consisting of a rationale generator and a predictor, to rule out the spurious correlation of certain syntactic patterns. Our method yields lower false positive rate in both lexical and dialectal attributes than previous debiasing methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-14T08:49:52Z)
• Challenges in Automated Debiasing for Toxic Language Detection [81.04406231100323]
  Biased associations have been a challenge in the development of classifiers for detecting toxic language. We investigate recently introduced debiasing methods for text classification datasets and models, as applied to toxic language detection. Our focus is on lexical (e.g., swear words, slurs, identity mentions) and dialectal markers (specifically African American English)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-29T22:03:17Z)

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.