Cited by 454Ethics and Social Impacts of AIGender Studies in LanguageTopic Modeling

Lipstick on a pig: Debiasing methods cover up systematic gender biases in word embeddings but do not remove them

Open access
Gonen, Hila, Goldberg, Yoav·2019·Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers)

Abstract

Hila Gonen, Yoav Goldberg. Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers). 2019.

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/n19-1061

Cites

3 of 3 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?

  • Debiasing techniques may merely represent bias in new ways in the embedding space.

    “Furthermore, Gonen and Goldberg (2019) critically show that debiasing techniques may merely represent bias in new ways in the embedding space.”

    From Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey (2024) · cites this paper as Gonen and Goldberg 2019

    The title in our indexed copy says debiasing methods cover up systematic gender biases in word embeddings rather than remove them. That supports the claim that bias may persist, but the available passages are bibliographic entries and do not establish that the methods represent bias in new ways in the embedding space. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gonen, H., & Goldberg, Y.
Venue
Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers)
Published
2019
Pages
609-614
OpenAlex
W2963381846
Cited by
454
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 66 · 2022: 81 · 2021: 96 · 2020: 72 · 2019: 37
FWCI
70.18
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)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
Ministry of Science, Technology and Space
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Studies in Language
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
bias mitigation, word embeddings, gender bias, systematic bias, bias removal

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