Cited by 454Ethics and Social Impacts of AIHate Speech and Cyberbullying DetectionTopic Modeling

CrowS-Pairs: A Challenge Dataset for Measuring Social Biases in Masked Language Models

Open access
Nangia, Nikita, Vania, Clara, Bhalerao, Rasika, Bowman, Samuel R.·2020·Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)

Abstract

Warning: This paper contains explicit statements of offensive stereotypes and may be upsetting.Pretrained language models, especially masked language models (MLMs) have seen success across many NLP tasks.However, there is ample evidence that they use the cultural biases that are undoubtedly present in the corpora they are trained on, implicitly creating harm with biased representations.To measure some forms of social bias in language models against protected demographic groups in the US, we introduce the Crowdsourced Stereotype Pairs benchmark (CrowS-Pairs).CrowS-Pairs has 1508 examples that cover stereotypes dealing with nine types of bias, like race, religion, and age.In CrowS-Pairs a model is presented with two sentences: one that is more stereotyping and another that is less stereotyping.The data focuses on stereotypes about historically disadvantaged groups and contrasts them with advantaged groups.We find that all three of the widelyused MLMs we evaluate substantially favor sentences that express stereotypes in every category in CrowS-Pairs.As work on building less biased models advances, this dataset can be used as a benchmark to evaluate progress.

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.emnlp-main.154

Cites

34 of 34 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?

  • Many works in the literature refer to the metric as the dataset and use these interchangeably.

    “In the literature, many works refer to the metric as the dataset, and use these interchangeably.”

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

    The Conclusion calls CrowS-Pairs a dataset and says the authors expect it to serve as a metric, supporting some overlap in how the terms are used. The paper does not establish that many works in the literature refer to the metric as the dataset or use the terms interchangeably. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Each CrowS-Pairs pair consists of one sentence demonstrating a stereotype and another replacing the disadvantaged group with an advantaged one.

    “Each pair consists of one sentence demonstrating a stereotype, and the other sentence replacing the disadvantaged group with an advantaged one (”

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

    The Introduction says each pair contains a sentence about a historically disadvantaged group and a minimally different sentence about a contrasting advantaged group. But the disadvantaged-group sentence can either demonstrate or violate a stereotype; the Data Collection section reports that anti-stereotype examples make up 15% of the dataset. Thus the claim is accurate about the group replacement, but not about every pair demonstrating a stereotype. (LLM, conf=0.91)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • InstructGPT does not significantly improve over GPT-3 on the Winogender and CrowS-Pairs datasets.

    “InstructGPT does not significantly improve over GPT-3 on the Winogender (Rudinger et al., 2018) and CrowSPairs (Nangia et al., 2020) datasets.”

    From Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback (2022) · cites this paper as Nangia et al., 2020

  • InstructGPT does not significantly improve over GPT-3 on the Winogender and CrowSPairs datasets.

    “InstructGPT does not significantly improve over GPT-3 on the Winogender (Rudinger et al., 2018) and CrowSPairs (Nangia et al., 2020) datasets.”

    From Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback (2022) · cites this paper as Nangia et al., 2020

  • The CrowS-Pairs dataset consists of stereotype sentence pairs proposed alongside a pseudo-log-likelihood metric over this specific set of sentence pairs.

    “One example is the CrowS-Pairs (Nangia et al. 2020) dataset consisting of stereotype sentence pairs proposed alongside a pseudo-log-likelihood metric over this specific set of sentence pairs:”

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

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

1 of the 35 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Emily Dinan, Angela Fan, Ledell Wu, Jason Weston, Douwe Kiela, and Adina Williams. 2020. Multi- dimensional gender bias classification. ArXiv.
  2. Paul Pu Liang, Irene Mengze Li, Emily Zheng, Yao Chong Lim, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Louis- Philippe Morency. 2020. Towards debiasing sen- tence representations. In Proceedings of the 2020 Association for Computational Linguistics. Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics.
  3. Alex Wang and Kyunghyun Cho. 2019. BERT has a mouth, and it must speak: BERT as a Markov random field language model. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Methods for Optimizing and Eval- uating Neural Language Generation, pages 30-36, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics. · DOI
  4. Alex Wang, Yada Pruksachatkun, Nikita Nangia, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel Bowman. 2019. SuperGLUE: A stickier benchmark for general-purpose language un- derstanding systems. In H. Wallach, H. Larochelle, A. Beygelzimer, F. d Álché Buc, E. Fox, and R. Gar- nett, editors, Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems 32, pages 3266-3280.
  5. Kellie Webster, Marta Recasens, Vera Axelrod, and Ja- son Baldridge. 2018. Mind the GAP: A balanced corpus of gendered ambiguous pronouns. Transac- tions of the Association for Computational Linguis- tics, 6:605-617. · DOI · Paper page
  6. Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pier- ric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtow- icz, and Jamie Brew. 2019. HuggingFace's trans- formers: State-of-the-art natural language process- ing. ArXiv.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nangia, N., Vania, C., Bhalerao, R., & Bowman, S. R.
Affiliations
New York University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)
Published
2020
Pages
1953-1967
OpenAlex
W3089430725
Cited by
446
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 71 · 2025: 93 · 2024: 64 · 2023: 121 · 2022: 60 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 1
FWCI
56.53
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • TIB Data Manager
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1922658)
  • Nvidia
  • Samsung
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
social bias, masked language models, stereotypes, benchmark dataset, race, age, crowdsourced data

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