Cited by 46Ethics and Social Impacts of AITopic ModelingHate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection

Towards a comprehensive understanding and accurate evaluation of societal biases in pre-trained transformers

Open access
Silva, Andrew, Tambwekar, Pradyumna, Gombolay, Matthew·2021·Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies

Abstract

Andrew Silva, Pradyumna Tambwekar, Matthew Gombolay. Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. 2021.

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/v1/2021.naacl-main.189

Cites

8 of 8 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?

  • During knowledge distillation, the student model may inherit or even amplify biases from the teacher.

    “During distillation, the student model may inherit or even amplify biases from the teacher (Ahn et al. 2022; Silva, Tambwekar, and Gombolay 2021).”

    From Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey (2024) · cites this paper as Silva, Tambwekar, and Gombolay 2021

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

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. Evelin Amorim, Marcia Canc ¸ado, and Adriano Veloso. 2018. Automated essay scoring in the presence of biased ratings. In Proceedings of the 2018 Confer- ence of the North American Chapter of the Associ- ation for Computational Linguistics: Human Lan- guage Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 229-237, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  2. Rishi Bommasani, Kelly Davis, and Claire Cardie. 2020. Interpreting pretrained contextualized repre- sentations via reductions to static embeddings. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics, pages 4758- 4781.
  3. Marc-Etienne Brunet, Colleen Alkalay-Houlihan, Ash- ton Anderson, and Richard Zemel. 2018. Under- standing the origins of bias in word embeddings. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.03611. · arXiv
  4. Aylin Caliskan, Joanna J Bryson, and Arvind Narayanan. 2017. Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biases. Science, 356(6334):183-186.
  5. Marta R. Costa-jussà, Christian Hardmeier, Will Rad- ford, and Kellie Webster, editors. 2019. Proceed- ings of the First Workshop on Gender Bias in Natu- ral Language Processing. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics, Florence, Italy.
  6. Kawin Ethayarajh, David Duvenaud, and Graeme Hirst. 2019. Understanding undesirable word embedding associations. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics, pages 1696-1705, Florence, Italy. Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  7. Sara Hooker, Nyalleng Moorosi, Gregory Clark, Samy Bengio, and Emily Denton. 2020. Characteris- ing bias in compressed models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.03058. · arXiv
  8. Svetlana Kiritchenko and Saif M Mohammad. 2018. Examining gender and race bias in two hun- dred sentiment analysis systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.04508. · arXiv
  9. Keita Kurita, Nidhi Vyas, Ayush Pareek, Alan W Black, and Yulia Tsvetkov. 2019. Measuring bias in con- textualized word representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.07337. · arXiv
  10. Thomas Manzini, Lim Yao Chong, Alan W Black, and Yulia Tsvetkov. 2019. Black is to criminal as caucasian is to police: Detecting and removing multiclass bias in word embeddings. In Proceed- ings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 615-621, Minneapo- lis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Lin- guistics. · DOI
  11. Tomas Mikolov, Kai Chen, Greg Corrado, and Jef- frey Dean. 2013. Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. arXiv preprint arXiv:1301.3781. · arXiv
  12. Jeffrey Pennington, Richard Socher, and Christopher D. Manning. 2014. Glove: Global vectors for word rep- resentation. In Empirical Methods in Natural Lan- guage Processing (EMNLP), pages 1532-1543.
  13. Rachel Rudinger, Jason Naradowsky, Brian Leonard, and Benjamin Van Durme. 2018. Gender bias in coreference resolution. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 2 (Short Papers), pages 8-14, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  14. Andrew Silva, Rohit Chopra, and Matthew Gombolay. 2020. Using cross-loss influence functions to ex- plain deep network representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.01685. · arXiv
  15. Eric Michael Smith, Mary Williamson, Kurt Shuster, Jason Weston, and Y-Lan Boureau. 2020. Can you put it all together: Evaluating conversational agents' ability to blend skills. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.08449. · arXiv
  16. Yi Chern Tan and L Elisa Celis. 2019. Assessing so- cial and intersectional biases in contextualized word representations. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 13209-13220.
  17. Jesse Vig, Sebastian Gehrmann, Yonatan Belinkov, Sharon Qian, Daniel Nevo, Yaron Singer, and Stuart Shieber. 2020. Causal mediation analysis for inter- preting neural nlp: The case of gender bias. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.12265. · arXiv
  18. Thomas Wolf, L Debut, V Sanh, J Chaumond, C De- langue, A Moi, P Cistac, T Rault, R Louf, M Fun- towicz, et al. 2019. Huggingface's transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. ArXiv, abs/1910.03771. · arXiv
  19. Rowan Zellers, Yonatan Bisk, Roy Schwartz, and Yejin Choi. 2018. Swag: A large-scale adversarial dataset for grounded commonsense inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:1808.05326. · arXiv
  20. Jieyu Zhao, Tianlu Wang, Mark Yatskar, Vicente Or- donez, and Kai-Wei Chang. 2018. Gender bias in coreference resolution: Evaluation and debiasing methods. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.06876. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Silva, A., Tambwekar, P., & Gombolay, M.
Affiliations
Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies
Published
2021
Pages
2383-2389
OpenAlex
W3166961312
Cited by
46
References
8
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 3
FWCI
9.27
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Georgia Institute of Technology
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
Keywords
social bias, pre-trained transformer models, bias assessment, language models, fairness, algorithmic bias

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