Do they mean 'us'? Interpreting Referring Expressions in Intergroup Bias

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.17947v2
• Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2024 17:08:00 GMT
• Title: Do they mean 'us'? Interpreting Referring Expressions in Intergroup Bias
• Authors: Venkata S Govindarajan, Matianyu Zang, Kyle Mahowald, David Beaver, Junyi Jessy Li,
• Abstract summary: In this paper, we model the intergroup bias as a tagging task on English sports comments from forums dedicated to fandom for NFL teams. We curate a unique dataset of over 6 million game-time comments from opposing perspectives (the teams in the game) Expert and crowd annotations justify modeling the bias through tagging of implicit and explicit referring expressions.
• Score: 42.35739515777376
• License:
• Abstract: The variations between in-group and out-group speech (intergroup bias) are subtle and could underlie many social phenomena like stereotype perpetuation and implicit bias. In this paper, we model the intergroup bias as a tagging task on English sports comments from forums dedicated to fandom for NFL teams. We curate a unique dataset of over 6 million game-time comments from opposing perspectives (the teams in the game), each comment grounded in a non-linguistic description of the events that precipitated these comments (live win probabilities for each team). Expert and crowd annotations justify modeling the bias through tagging of implicit and explicit referring expressions and reveal the rich, contextual understanding of language and the world required for this task. For large-scale analysis of intergroup variation, we use LLMs for automated tagging, and discover that some LLMs perform best when prompted with linguistic descriptions of the win probability at the time of the comment, rather than numerical probability. Further, large-scale tagging of comments using LLMs uncovers linear variations in the form of referent across win probabilities that distinguish in-group and out-group utterances. Code and data are available at https://github.com/venkatasg/intergroup-nfl .

Related papers

• With a Grain of SALT: Are LLMs Fair Across Social Dimensions? [3.979019316355144]
  This paper presents an analysis of biases in open-source Large Language Models (LLMs) across various genders, religions, and races. We introduce a methodology for generating a bias detection dataset using seven bias triggers: General Debate, Positioned Debate, Career Advice, Story Generation, Problem-Solving, Cover-Letter Writing, and CV Generation. We anonymise the LLM-generated text associated with each group using GPT-4o-mini and do a pairwise comparison using GPT-4o-as-a-Judge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T12:22:47Z)
• Spoken Stereoset: On Evaluating Social Bias Toward Speaker in Speech Large Language Models [50.40276881893513]
  This study introduces Spoken Stereoset, a dataset specifically designed to evaluate social biases in Speech Large Language Models (SLLMs) By examining how different models respond to speech from diverse demographic groups, we aim to identify these biases. The findings indicate that while most models show minimal bias, some still exhibit slightly stereotypical or anti-stereotypical tendencies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-14T16:55:06Z)
• Implicit Multimodal Alignment: On the Generalization of Frozen LLMs to Multimodal Inputs [63.29737699997859]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance on multimodal tasks, without any multimodal finetuning. In this work, we expose frozen LLMs to image, video, audio and text inputs and analyse their internal representation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-26T21:31:59Z)
• Self-Debiasing Large Language Models: Zero-Shot Recognition and Reduction of Stereotypes [73.12947922129261]
  We leverage the zero-shot capabilities of large language models to reduce stereotyping. We show that self-debiasing can significantly reduce the degree of stereotyping across nine different social groups. We hope this work opens inquiry into other zero-shot techniques for bias mitigation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-03T01:40:11Z)
• Aligning with Whom? Large Language Models Have Gender and Racial Biases in Subjective NLP Tasks [15.015148115215315]
  We conduct experiments on four popular large language models (LLMs) to investigate their capability to understand group differences and potential biases in their predictions for politeness and offensiveness. We find that for both tasks, model predictions are closer to the labels from White and female participants. More specifically, when being prompted to respond from the perspective of "Black" and "Asian" individuals, models show lower performance in predicting both overall scores as well as the scores from corresponding groups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T10:02:24Z)
• Queer People are People First: Deconstructing Sexual Identity Stereotypes in Large Language Models [3.974379576408554]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are trained primarily on minimally processed web text. LLMs can inadvertently perpetuate stereotypes towards marginalized groups, like the LGBTQIA+ community.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-30T19:39:01Z)
• Event knowledge in large language models: the gap between the impossible and the unlikely [46.540380831486125]
  We show that pre-trained large language models (LLMs) possess substantial event knowledge. They almost always assign higher likelihood to possible vs. impossible events. However, they show less consistent preferences for likely vs. unlikely events.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-02T23:43:18Z)
• Fair Group-Shared Representations with Normalizing Flows [68.29997072804537]
  We develop a fair representation learning algorithm which is able to map individuals belonging to different groups in a single group. We show experimentally that our methodology is competitive with other fair representation learning algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-17T10:49:49Z)

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.