Bias Mitigation for Toxicity Detection via Sequential Decisions
Open accessAbstract
Increased social media use has contributed to the greater prevalence of abusive, rude, and offensive textual comments. Machine learning models have been developed to detect toxic comments online, yet these models tend to show biases against users with marginalized or minority identities (e.g., females and African Americans). Established research in debiasing toxicity classifiers often (1) takes a static or batch approach, assuming that all information is available and then making a one-time decision; and (2) uses a generic strategy to mitigate different biases (e.g., gender and racial biases) that assumes the biases are independent of one another. However, in real scenarios, the input typically arrives as a sequence of comments/words over time instead of all at once. Thus, decisions based on partial information must be made while additional input is arriving. Moreover, social bias is complex by nature. Each type of bias is defined within its unique context, which, consistent with intersectionality theory within the social sciences, might be correlated with the contexts of other forms of bias. In this work, we consider debiasing toxicity detection as a sequential decision-making process where different biases can be interdependent. In particular, we study debiasing toxicity detection with two aims: (1) to examine whether different biases tend to correlate with each other; and (2) to investigate how to jointly mitigate these correlated biases in an interactive manner to minimize the total amount of bias. At the core of our approach is a framework built upon theories of sequential Markov Decision Processes that seeks to maximize the prediction accuracy and minimize the bias measures tailored to individual biases. Evaluations on two benchmark datasets empirically validate the hypothesis that biases tend to be correlated and corroborate the effectiveness of the proposed sequential debiasing strategy.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Most efforts in toxicity detection focus on social media comments.
“Most efforts in the domain of toxicity detection are focusing on social media comments (Cheng et al. 2022;Hosseinmardi et al. 2015;Ghosh et al. 2021;Bensalem, Rosso, and Zitouni 2024).”
From Benchmark on Peer Review Toxic Detection: A Challenging Task with a New Dataset (2025) · cites this paper as Cheng et al. 2022
The Abstract links toxicity detection to abusive comments associated with social media and says models have been developed to detect toxic comments online. It does not establish that most toxicity-detection efforts focus on social media comments; searches for that broader characterization found no further support in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddings
Bolukbasi, T., Chang, K.-W., Zou, J., Saligrama, V., & Kalai, A. (2016) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1607.06520 · Cited by 1,615 · see citing works
Word embeddings quantify 100 years of gender and ethnic stereotypes
Garg, N., Schiebinger, L., Jurafsky, D., & Zou, J. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1720347115 · Cited by 1,065 · see citing works
Measuring and Mitigating Unintended Bias in Text Classification
Dixon, L., Li, J., Sorensen, J., Thain, N., & Vasserman, L. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society · doi:10.1145/3278721.3278729 · Cited by 674 · see citing works
Reducing Gender Bias in Abusive Language Detection
Park, J. H., Shin, J., & Fung, P. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d18-1302 · Cited by 323 · see citing works
Demographic dialectal variation in social media: a case study of African-American English
Blodgett, S. L., Green, L., & O'Connor, B. (2016) · Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/d16-1120 · Cited by 291 · see citing works
Geva, M., Goldberg, Y., & Berant, J. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/d19-1107 · Cited by 284 · see citing works
Cyberbullying Detection With Fairness Constraints
Gencoglu, O. (2021) · IEEE Internet Computing · doi:10.1109/mic.2020.3032461 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Benchmark on Peer Review Toxic Detection: A Challenging Task with a New Dataset
Luo, M., Peterson, B., Gan, R., Ramalingame, H., Gangrade, N., Dimarogona, A., Banerjee, I., & Howard, P. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.01676 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Cheng, L., Mosallanezhad, A., Silva, Y. N., Hall, D. L., & Liu, H.
- Affiliations
- Arizona State University (US)
- Loyola University Chicago (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2022-07-06
- Pages
- 1750-1760
- OpenAlex
- W4284692538
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3
- FWCI
- 0.78
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- ecommons.luc.edu
- Licence
- Locations
- International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR) (publishedVersion)
- Loyola eCommons (Loyola University of Chicago) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (2036127)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
- Keywords
- toxicity detection, bias mitigation, sequential decision making, Markov decision process, gender bias, racial bias, intersectionality, online comments, social media
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review