Self-Diagnosis and Self-Debiasing: A Proposal for Reducing Corpus-Based Bias in NLP
Open accessAbstract
When trained on large, unfiltered crawls from the internet, language models pick up and reproduce all kinds of undesirable biases that can be found in the data: they often generate racist, sexist, violent or otherwise toxic language. As large models require millions of training examples to achieve good performance, it is difficult to completely prevent them from being exposed to such content. In this paper, we first demonstrate a surprising finding: pretrained language models recognize, to a considerable degree, their undesirable biases and the toxicity of the content they produce. We refer to this capability as self-diagnosis. Based on this finding, we then propose a decoding algorithm that, given only a textual description of the undesired behavior, reduces the probability of a language model producing problematic text. We refer to this approach as self-debiasing. Self-debiasing does not rely on manually curated word lists, nor does it require any training data or changes to the model's parameters. While we by no means eliminate the issue of language models generating biased text, we believe our approach to be an important step in this direction.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
LMs can perform self-diagnosis and self-debiasing based on biased or debiased instructions.
“Schick et al. [121] found that LMs can perform self-diagnosis and self-debiasing based on biased or debiased instructions.”
From Pre-train, Prompt, and Predict: A Systematic Survey of Prompting Methods in Natural Language Processing (2023) · cites this paper as [121]
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback
Ouyang, L., Wu, J., Jiang, X., Almeida, D., Wainwright, C. L., Mishkin, P., Zhang, C., Agarwal, S., Slama, K., Ray, A., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.02155 · Cited by 4,208 · see citing works
Liu, P., Yuan, W., Fu, J., Jiang, Z., Hayashi, H., & Neubig, G. (2023) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3560815 · Cited by 4,361 · see citing works
Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing via Large Pre-trained Language Models: A Survey
Min, B., Ross, H., Sulem, E., Veyseh, A. P. B., Nguyen, T. H., Sainz, O., Agirre, E., Heintz, I., & Roth, D. (2024) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3605943 · Cited by 1,387 · see citing works
Taxonomy of Risks posed by Language Models
Weidinger, L., Uesato, J., Rauh, M., Griffin, C., Huang, P.-S., Mellor, J., Glaese, A., Cheng, M., Balle, B., Kasirzadeh, A., et al. (2022) · 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3531146.3533088 · Cited by 764 · see citing works
“Mitigation strategies include filtering out toxic statements from training corpora, either during initial training [194], fine-tuning after pretraining [61], filtering LM outputs [194, 197], decoding techniques [42, 108, 166] or prompt design [9, 148].”
BackgroundBeyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models
Srivastava, A., Rastogi, A., Rao, A., Shoeb, A. A. M., Abid, A., Fisch, A., Brown, A. R., Santoro, A., Gupta, A., Garriga-Alonso, A., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2206.04615 · Cited by 569 · see citing works
Self-citationRed Teaming Language Models with Language Models
Perez, E., Huang, S., Song, F., Cai, T., Ring, R., Aslanides, J., Glaese, A., McAleese, N., & Irving, G. (2022) · Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.225 · Cited by 363 · see citing works
Societal Biases in Language Generation: Progress and Challenges
Sheng, E., Chang, K.-W., Natarajan, P., & Peng, N. (2021) · Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.330 · Cited by 131 · see citing works
What’s in the Box? An Analysis of Undesirable Content in the Common Crawl Corpus
Luccioni, A., & Viviano, J. (2021) · Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 2: Short Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-short.24 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Changing the World by Changing the Data
Rogers, A. (2021) · Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.170 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
SafetyKit: First Aid for Measuring Safety in Open-domain Conversational Systems
Dinan, E., Abercrombie, G., Bergman, A., Spruit, S., Hovy, D., Boureau, Y.-L., & Rieser, V. (2022) · Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.284 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Gender-tuning: Empowering Fine-tuning for Debiasing Pre-trained Language Models
Ghanbarzadeh, S., Huang, Y., Palangi, H., Cruz Moreno, R., & Khanpour, H. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023 · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.336 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
From Illusion to Insight: A Taxonomic Survey of Hallucination Mitigation Techniques in LLMs
Kazlaris, I., Antoniou, E., Diamantaras, K., & Bratsas, C. (2025) · doi:10.20944/preprints202508.1942.v1 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
- Authors
- Schick, T., Udupa, S., & Schütze, H.
- Affiliations
- Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2021
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2103.00453
- OpenAlex
- W4287322188
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- European Commission
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Keywords
- self-diagnosis, toxicity detection, decoding algorithms
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
