CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 1,615Ethics and Social Impacts of AITopic ModelingHate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection

Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddings

Open access
Bolukbasi, Tolga, Chang, Kai-Wei, Zou, James, Saligrama, Venkatesh, Kalai, Adam·2016·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1607.06520arXiv 1607.06520
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The blind application of machine learning runs the risk of amplifying biases present in data. Such a danger is facing us with word embedding, a popular framework to represent text data as vectors which has been used in many machine learning and natural language processing tasks. We show that even word embeddings trained on Google News articles exhibit female/male gender stereotypes to a disturbing extent. This raises concerns because their widespread use, as we describe, often tends to amplify these biases. Geometrically, gender bias is first shown to be captured by a direction in the word embedding. Second, gender neutral words are shown to be linearly separable from gender definition words in the word embedding. Using these properties, we provide a methodology for modifying an embedding to remove gender stereotypes, such as the association between between the words receptionist and female, while maintaining desired associations such as between the words queen and female. We define metrics to quantify both direct and indirect gender biases in embeddings, and develop algorithms to "debias" the embedding. Using crowd-worker evaluation as well as standard benchmarks, we empirically demonstrate that our algorithms significantly reduce gender bias in embeddings while preserving the its useful properties such as the ability to cluster related concepts and to solve analogy tasks. The resulting embeddings can be used in applications without amplifying gender bias.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1607.06520

Cites

33 of 33 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?

  • 'Clean' text has been misrepresented as being 'unbiased' against any community, a notion that has been strongly contested.

    “'Clean' text additionally has been misrepresented as being 'unbiased' against any community-a notion that has been strongly contested [22, 73, 130].”

    From Data Governance in the Age of Large-Scale Data-Driven Language Technology (2022) · cites this paper as [22]

    The passage on gender associations (p. 3) says word embeddings reveal bias implicit in the text on which they were trained, and the Discussion (p. 15) says document corpora can contain gender and racial stereotypes. This supports contesting the idea that text is inherently unbiased, but the paper does not say that ‘clean’ text was represented as unbiased against every community. (LLM, conf=0.81)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Temporality has been flagged as a potential source of difficulty in textual data, where models trained on historical text corpora, such as Google News articles, have been found to reproduce past social stereotypes.

    “temporality has been flagged as a potential source of difficulty in textual data, where models trained on historical text corpora, such as Google News articles, have been found to reproduce past social stereotypes (e.g. the word”

    From A Survey of Data Quality Requirements That Matter in ML Development Pipelines (2023) · cites this paper as [14]

    The Abstract (p. 1) and the discussion of Google News analogies (p. 3) report that embeddings trained on Google News text reproduce gender stereotypes. The paper does not establish that the corpus is historical or that temporality causes the stereotypes to reflect the past rather than broader society. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Generative AI outputs tend to reproduce normative views and mirror societal biases for marginalized groups, including people with disabilities.

    “Generative AI outputs tend to reproduce normative views and mirror societal biases for marginalized groups [15, 21, 36, 41, 42, 45, 53, 66, 72, 91], including PwD [10, 12, 39, 48, 54, 62, 77, 113].”

    From Engaging Communities Meaningfully in Defining Disability Representation for AI Image Generation (2026) · cites this paper as [15]

    The discussion on p. 3 says word embeddings reflect societal gender stereotypes and can amplify them; it also gives stereotyped analogy outputs. This supports the bias point, but the paper studies word embeddings, not generative AI outputs generally or biases affecting marginalized groups broadly. The separate PwD clause has its own citations and is not attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Natural language processing algorithms for textual analysis can display recurrent gender biases, for instance associating "doctor" with "father" and "nurse" with "mother".

    “natural language processing (NLP) algorithms for textual analysis can display recurrent gender biases (Bolukbasi et al. 2016), for instance, associating the word “doctor” with “father” and “nurse” with “mother””

    From Accountable Artificial Intelligence: Holding Algorithms to Account (2021) · cites this paper as Bolukbasi et al. 2016

  • Some solutions allow for the dataset to remain unchanged while the ML algorithm is tuned to produce more robust or socially equitable outcomes.

    “Some solutions even allow for the dataset to remain unchanged while the ML algorithm is tuned to produce more robust or socially equitable outcomes [14,29].”

    From A Survey of Data Quality Requirements That Matter in ML Development Pipelines (2023) · cites this paper as [14]

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: 7

  1. [5][5] A. J. Cuddy, E. B. Wolf, P. Glick, S. Crotty, J. Chong, and M. I. Norton. Men as cultural ideals: Cultural values moderate gender stereotype content. Journal of personality and social psychology , 109(4):622, 2015. -
  2. [6][6] A. Datta, M. C. Tschantz, and A. Datta. Automated experiments on ad privacy settings. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies , 2015. -
  3. [11][11] C. Fellbaum, editor. Wordnet: An Electronic Lexical Database . The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1998. -
  4. [13][13] P. Glick and S. T. Fiske. The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of personality and social psychology , 70(3):491, 1996. -
  5. [16][16] C. Hansen, M. Tosik, G. Goossen, C. Li, L. Bayeva, F. Berbain, and M. Rotaru. How to get the best word vectors for resume parsing. In SNN Adaptive Intelligence / Symposium: Machine Learning 2015, Nijmegen. -
  6. [20][20] J. T. Jost and A. C. Kay. Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification. Journal of personality and social psychology , 88(3):498, 2005. -
  7. [35][35] J. P. Stanley. Paradigmatic woman: The prostitute. Papers in language variation , pages 303-321, 1977. -

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Bolukbasi, T., Chang, K.-W., Zou, J., Saligrama, V., & Kalai, A.
Affiliations
  • Boston University (US)
  • Microsoft Research New England (United States) (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2016
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1607.06520
arXiv
1607.06520
OpenAlex
W2483215953
Cited by
1,615
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 136 · 2024: 201 · 2023: 240 · 2022: 154 · 2021: 313 · 2020: 253 · 2019: 204 · 2018: 69 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 1 · 2013: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • OpenBU (Boston University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
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
gender bias, word embeddings, bias mitigation, gender stereotypes, gender neutrality, analogy tasks, concept clustering, Google News, crowdsourced evaluation

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