Cited by 301Ethics and Social Impacts of AIHate Speech and Cyberbullying DetectionDisability Rights and Representation

Social Biases in NLP Models as Barriers for Persons with Disabilities

Open access
Hutchinson, Ben, Prabhakaran, Vinodkumar, Denton, Emily, Webster, Kellie, Zhong, Yu, Denuyl, Stephen·2020·Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics

Abstract

Building equitable and inclusive NLP technologies demands consideration of whether and how social attitudes are represented in ML models.In particular, representations encoded in models often inadvertently perpetuate undesirable social biases from the data on which they are trained.In this paper, we present evidence of such undesirable biases towards mentions of disability in two different English language models: toxicity prediction and sentiment analysis.Next, we demonstrate that the neural embeddings that are the critical first step in most NLP pipelines similarly contain undesirable biases towards mentions of disability.We end by highlighting topical biases in the discourse about disability which may contribute to the observed model biases; for instance, gun violence, homelessness, and drug addiction are over-represented in texts discussing mental illness.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.487

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The presence of biases in large language models has been well-documented, including negative sentiment and toxicity directed towards some social groups, stereotypical linguistic associations, and lack of recognition of certain language dialects.

    “From negative sentiment and toxicity directed towards some social groups, to stereotypical linguistic associations, to lack of recognition of certain language dialects, the presence of biases of LLMs have been well-documented ( e.g. , Blodgett and O'Connor 2017; Hutchinson et al. 2020; Mei, Fereidooni, and Caliskan 2023; Mˇ echura 2022; Mozafari, Farahbakhsh, and Crespi 2020; Sap et al. 2019; Shen”

    From Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey (2024) · cites this paper as Hutchinson et al. 2020

    Sections 3 and 4 report that disability-related phrases can receive elevated toxicity scores and negative sentiment associations, including in BERT word predictions. The cited paper does not establish a lack of recognition of language dialects; its evidence concerns disability bias in specific NLP models, rather than LLMs generally. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Language models inherit biases and dominant views from their training corpus.

    “Text suggestions based on language models have been known to inherit biases and dominant 'views' from the text corpus used to train the language model [22,39,43,55].”
  • LLMs learn from web-sourced text data, acquiring inherent biases.

    “LLMs learn from web-sourced text data, acquiring inherent biases (31–33) and—in some cases—replicate excerpts from their training data (34).”

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

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 43 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Su Lin Blodgett, Solon Barocas, Hal III Daume, and Hanna Wallach. 2020. Language (technology) is power: The need to be explicit about NLP harms. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Associ- ation for Computational Lingustics (ACL).
  2. Alexander D'Amour, Hansa Srinivasan, James At- wood, Pallavi Baljekar, D Sculley, and Yoni Halpern. 2020. Fairness is not static: Deeper understanding of long term fairness via simulation studies. In Pro- ceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Ac- countability, and Transparency, pages 525-534.
  3. Donald Martin Jr., Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Jill Kuhlberg, Andrew Smart, and William Isaac. 2020. Participatory problem formulation for fairer ma- chine learning through community based system dy- namics approach. In ICLR Workshop on Machine Learning in Real Life (ML-IRL).
  4. Deirdre K Mulligan, Joshua A Kroll, Nitin Kohli, and Richmond Y Wong. 2019. This thing called fairness: Disciplinary confusion realizing a value in technol- ogy. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 3(CSCW):1-36.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hutchinson, B., Prabhakaran, V., Denton, E., Webster, K., Zhong, Y., & Denuyl, S.
Venue
Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics
Published
2020
Pages
5491-5501
ISSN
0736-587X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3035296331
Cited by
274
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 66 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 48 · 2020: 10
FWCI
43.56
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Disability Rights and Representation
Keywords
social bias, disability, natural language processing models, toxicity prediction, sentiment analysis, neural embeddings, bias in language models, mental illness discourse, inclusive technology, disability representation

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