Automatic Classifiers Underdetect Emotions Expressed by Men

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.04730v1
• Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2026 08:52:17 GMT
• Title: Automatic Classifiers Underdetect Emotions Expressed by Men
• Abstract summary: We use a unique, large-scale dataset of more than one million self-annotated posts to investigate gender biases in emotion detection.<n>We find that error rates are consistently higher for texts authored by men compared to those authored by women.
• Score: 0.16544456899192797
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The widespread adoption of automatic sentiment and emotion classifiers makes it important to ensure that these tools perform reliably across different populations. Yet their reliability is typically assessed using benchmarks that rely on third-party annotators rather than the individuals experiencing the emotions themselves, potentially concealing systematic biases. In this paper, we use a unique, large-scale dataset of more than one million self-annotated posts and a pre-registered research design to investigate gender biases in emotion detection across 414 combinations of models and emotion-related classes. We find that across different types of automatic classifiers and various underlying emotions, error rates are consistently higher for texts authored by men compared to those authored by women. We quantify how this bias could affect results in downstream applications and show that current machine learning tools, including large language models, should be applied with caution when the gender composition of a sample is not known or variable. Our findings demonstrate that sentiment analysis is not yet a solved problem, especially in ensuring equitable model behaviour across demographic groups.

Related papers

• A Mechanistic Analysis of Gender Sensitivity in Dense Retrieval Models [68.90383874606164]
  We analyze bi-encoder models to localize gender sensitivity, finding that the signal originates in input embeddings and propagates through a small set of late-layer attention heads.<n>Our findings provide a mechanistic basis for targeted debiasing and highlight the challenge of disentangling gender from relevance signals in shared model components.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-05T23:33:01Z)
• PersonaDrift: A Benchmark for Temporal Anomaly Detection in Language-Based Dementia Monitoring [0.9668407688201359]
  PersonaDrift is a benchmark designed to evaluate machine learning and statistical methods for detecting progressive changes in daily communication.<n>The benchmark focuses on two forms of longitudinal change that caregivers highlighted as particularly salient: flattened sentiment and off-topic replies.<n>Preliminary results show that flattened sentiment can often be detected with simple statistical models in users with low baseline variability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-20T15:15:00Z)
• Bias in Gender Bias Benchmarks: How Spurious Features Distort Evaluation [116.86965910589775]
  We show that even minimal perturbations, such as masking just 10% of objects or weakly blurring backgrounds, can dramatically alter bias scores.<n>This suggests that current bias evaluations reflect model responses to spurious features rather than gender bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-09T11:14:11Z)
• EMO-Debias: Benchmarking Gender Debiasing Techniques in Multi-Label Speech Emotion Recognition [49.27067541740956]
  EMO-Debias is a large-scale comparison of 13 debiasing methods applied to multi-label SER.<n>Our study encompasses techniques from pre-processing, regularization, adversarial learning, biased learners, and distributionally robust optimization.<n>Our analysis quantifies the trade-offs between fairness and accuracy, identifying which approaches consistently reduce gender performance gaps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T05:48:31Z)
• Gender Encoding Patterns in Pretrained Language Model Representations [17.101242741559428]
  Gender bias in pretrained language models (PLMs) poses significant social and ethical challenges.<n>This study adopts an information-theoretic approach to analyze how gender biases are encoded within various encoder-based architectures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-09T19:17:46Z)
• Blind Men and the Elephant: Diverse Perspectives on Gender Stereotypes in Benchmark Datasets [12.798832545154271]
  This paper examines the inconsistencies between intrinsic stereotype benchmarks.<n>Using StereoSet and CrowS-Pairs as case studies, we investigated how data distribution affects benchmark results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-02T09:40:31Z)
• Everyone deserves their voice to be heard: Analyzing Predictive Gender Bias in ASR Models Applied to Dutch Speech Data [13.91630413828167]
  This study focuses on identifying the performance disparities of Whisper models on Dutch speech data. We analyzed the word error rate, character error rate and a BERT-based semantic similarity across gender groups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-14T13:29:09Z)
• 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)
• Causally Testing Gender Bias in LLMs: A Case Study on Occupational Bias [33.99768156365231]
  We introduce a causal formulation for bias measurement in generative language models.<n>We propose a benchmark called OccuGender, with a bias-measuring procedure to investigate occupational gender bias.<n>The results show that these models exhibit substantial occupational gender bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-20T22:41:24Z)
• Choose Your Lenses: Flaws in Gender Bias Evaluation [29.16221451643288]
  We assess the current paradigm of gender bias evaluation and identify several flaws in it. First, we highlight the importance of extrinsic bias metrics that measure how a model's performance on some task is affected by gender. Second, we find that datasets and metrics are often coupled, and discuss how their coupling hinders the ability to obtain reliable conclusions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-20T17:59:55Z)
• Social Biases in Automatic Evaluation Metrics for NLG [53.76118154594404]
  We propose an evaluation method based on Word Embeddings Association Test (WEAT) and Sentence Embeddings Association Test (SEAT) to quantify social biases in evaluation metrics. We construct gender-swapped meta-evaluation datasets to explore the potential impact of gender bias in image caption and text summarization tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-17T08:55:26Z)
• Seeking Subjectivity in Visual Emotion Distribution Learning [93.96205258496697]
  Visual Emotion Analysis (VEA) aims to predict people's emotions towards different visual stimuli. Existing methods often predict visual emotion distribution in a unified network, neglecting the inherent subjectivity in its crowd voting process. We propose a novel textitSubjectivity Appraise-and-Match Network (SAMNet) to investigate the subjectivity in visual emotion distribution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-25T02:20:03Z)
• 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)

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.