PreprintCited by 189Ethics and Social Impacts of AITopic ModelingHate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection

BBQ: A Hand-Built Bias Benchmark for Question Answering

Open access
Parrish, Alicia, Chen, Angelica, Nangia, Nikita, Padmakumar, Vishakh, Phang, Jason, Thompson, Jana, Htut, Phu Mon, Bowman, Samuel R.·2021·arXiv

Abstract

It is well documented that NLP models learn social biases, but little work has been done on how these biases manifest in model outputs for applied tasks like question answering (QA). We introduce the Bias Benchmark for QA (BBQ), a dataset of question sets constructed by the authors that highlight attested social biases against people belonging to protected classes along nine social dimensions relevant for U.S. English-speaking contexts. Our task evaluates model responses at two levels: (i) given an under-informative context, we test how strongly responses reflect social biases, and (ii) given an adequately informative context, we test whether the model's biases override a correct answer choice. We find that models often rely on stereotypes when the context is under-informative, meaning the model's outputs consistently reproduce harmful biases in this setting. Though models are more accurate when the context provides an informative answer, they still rely on stereotypes and average up to 3.4 percentage points higher accuracy when the correct answer aligns with a social bias than when it conflicts, with this difference widening to over 5 points on examples targeting gender for most models tested.

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.2110.08193

Cites

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?

  • Each individual task can be very effort-intensive to implement correctly; even a single evaluation such as BBQ can take a significant number of researcher-hours to implement well and understand.

    “Each individual task can be very effort-intensive to implement correctly - as Ganguli et al. (2023) discuss, even a single evaluation such as BBQ (Parrish et al., 2021) can take a significant number of researcher-hours to implement well and understand”

    From Lessons from the Trenches on Reproducible Evaluation of Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as Parrish et al., 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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 27

  1. Su Lin Blodgett, Solon Barocas, Hal Daumé III, and Hanna Wallach. 2020. Language (technology) is power: A critical survey of" bias" in NLP. In Pro- ceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics, pages 5454- 5476.
  2. Su Lin Blodgett, Gilsinia Lopez, Alexandra Olteanu, Robert Sim, and Hanna Wallach. 2021. Stereotyp- ing Norwegian salmon: An inventory of pitfalls in fairness benchmark datasets. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Vol- ume 1: Long Papers), pages 1004-1015, Online. As- sociation for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  3. Shikha Bordia and Samuel R. Bowman. 2019. Identify- ing and reducing gender bias in word-level language models. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Student Research Work- shop, pages 7-15, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Associ- ation for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  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. · DOI · Paper page
  5. Yang Trista Cao and Hal Daumé III. 2020. Toward gender-inclusive coreference resolution. In Proceed- ings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 4568-4595, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  6. Jorida Cila, Richard N Lalonde, Joni Y Sasaki, Ray- mond A Mar, and Ronda F Lo. 2021. Zahra or Zoe, Arjun or Andrew? Bicultural baby names refect identity and pragmatic concerns. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 27(3):307.
  7. Peter Clark, Isaac Cowhey, Oren Etzioni, Tushar Khot, Ashish Sabharwal, Carissa Schoenick, and Oyvind Tafjord. 2018. Think you have solved question an- swering? Try ARC, the AI2 reasoning challenge. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.05457. · arXiv
  8. Kate Crawford. 2017. The trouble with bias. http: //youtube.com/watch?v=fMym_BKWQzk. Talk given at NeurIPS December 2017.
  9. Rajeev Darolia, Cory Koedel, Paco Martorell, Katie Wilson, and Francisco Perez-Arce. 2016. Race and gender effects on employer interest in job applicants: new evidence from a resume feld experiment. Ap- plied Economics Letters, 23(12):853-856. · DOI
  10. Thomas Davidson, Debasmita Bhattacharya, and Ing- mar Weber. 2019. Racial bias in hate speech and abusive language detection datasets. In Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Abusive Language Online, pages 25-35, Florence, Italy. Association for Com- putational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  11. Sunipa Dev, Emily Sheng, Jieyu Zhao, Jiao Sun, Yu Hou, Mattie Sanseverino, Jiin Kim, Nanyun Peng, and Kai-Wei Chang. 2021. What do bias mea- sures measure? arXiv preprint: 2108.03362. · arXiv
  12. Pengcheng He, Jianfeng Gao, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. DeBERTaV3: Improving DeBERTa us- ing ELECTRA-style pre-training with gradient- disentangled embedding sharing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.09543. · arXiv
  13. Joseph Kasof. 1993. Sex bias in the naming of stimulus persons. Psychological bulletin, 113(1):140.
  14. Daniel Khashabi, Tushar Khot, Ashish Sabharwal, Oyvind Tafjord, Peter Clark, and Hannaneh Ha- jishirzi. 2020. UnifedQA: Crossing format bound- aries with a single QA system. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: Findings, pages 1896-1907.
  15. Guokun Lai, Qizhe Xie, Hanxiao Liu, Yiming Yang, and Eduard Hovy. 2017. RACE: Large-scale ReAd- ing comprehension dataset from examinations. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 785-794, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  16. Tao Li, Daniel Khashabi, Tushar Khot, Ashish Sab- harwal, and Vivek Srikumar. 2020. UNQOVERing stereotyping biases via underspecifed questions. In Findings of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 3475-3489, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  17. Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Man- dar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. RoBERTa: A robustly optimized BERT pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692. · arXiv
  18. Kaiji Lu, Piotr Mardziel, Fangjing Wu, Preetam Aman- charla, and Anupam Datta. 2020. Gender bias in neural natural language processing. In Logic, Lan- guage, and Security, pages 189-202. Springer. · DOI
  19. Liam Magee, Lida Ghahremanlou, Karen Soldatic, and Shanthi Robertson. 2021. Intersectional bias in causal language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.07691. · arXiv
  20. Chandler May, Alex Wang, Shikha Bordia, Samuel R. Bowman, and Rachel Rudinger. 2019. On measur- ing social biases in sentence encoders. 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 622-628, Minneapo- lis, Minnesota. Association for Computational Lin- guistics. · DOI · Paper page
  21. Robert Munro and Alex (Carmen) Morrison. 2020. Detecting independent pronoun bias with partially- synthetic data generation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 2011-2017, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  22. Keiko Nakao and Judith Treas. 1994. Updating occupa- tional prestige and socioeconomic scores: How the new measures measure up. Sociological methodol- ogy, pages 1-72.
  23. Alexey Romanov, Maria De-Arteaga, Hanna Wal- lach, Jennifer Chayes, Christian Borgs, Alexan- dra Chouldechova, Sahin Geyik, Krishnaram Ken- thapadi, Anna Rumshisky, and Adam Kalai. 2019. What's in a name? Reducing bias in bios without access to protected attributes. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Hu- man Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4187-4195, Minneapolis, Min- nesota. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  24. Paul Röttger, Bertie Vidgen, Dong Nguyen, Zeerak Waseem, Helen Margetts, and Janet Pierrehumbert. 2021. HateCheck: Functional tests for hate speech detection models. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), Online. Association for Computational Lin- guistics.
  25. 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
  26. Maarten Sap, Saadia Gabriel, Lianhui Qin, Dan Ju- rafsky, Noah A. Smith, and Yejin Choi. 2020. So- cial bias frames: Reasoning about social and power implications of language. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics, pages 5477-5490, Online. As- sociation for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  27. Emily Sheng, Kai-Wei Chang, Premkumar Natarajan, and Nanyun Peng. 2019. The woman worked as 41.2 31.4 33.9 54.7 28.5 46.8 39.5 25.4 36.0 53.3 50.5 47.4 51.2 44.0 38.7 65.2 65.8 64.0 57.6 26.5 38.9 55.3 70.1 56.9 46.8 31.7 41.6 66.0 73.1 44.3 28.3 25.8 36.8 49.5 36.3 42.5 48.9 25.4 42.3 62.3 69.1 38.4 44.2 19.4 42.8 63.6 73.2 38.0 57.7 42.2 43.8 65.0 73.7 55.8 41.4 21.8 51.6 68.8 56.7 39.1 66.3 37.0 40.3 65.2 76.2 70.2 77.9 97.1 89.6 93.5 63.0 90.8 77.0 98.8 92.0 92.8 51.4 86.5 82.7 88.1 78.6 78.9 46.1 83.3 85.4 98.6 89.6 92.0 59.2 84.1 81.7 96.6 92.9 93.7 50.1 89.6 75.6 88.7 78.8 82.1 44.7 79.4 75.1 99.6 93.8 97.0 53.7 91.0 80.2 97.8 92.3 96.8 59.1 87.8 78.5 90.0 85.2 88.0 45.3 80.0 81.2 98.6 92.6 94.0 47.7 93.8 89.3 96.3 96.9 96.7 59.0 94.0 17329 17329 17329 17329 17329 17329 17329 17329 17329 17329 18033 18033 18033 18033 18033 18033 18033 18033 18033 18033 9426 9426 9426 9426 9426 9426 9426 9426 9426 9426 15891 15891 15891 15891 15891 15891 15891 15891 15891 15891 20679 20679 20679 20679 20679 20679 20679 20679 20679 20679 27878 27878 27878 27878 27878 27878 27878 27878 27878 27878 17302 17302 17302 17302 17302 17302 17302 17302 17302 17302 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Parrish, A., Chen, A., Nangia, N., Padmakumar, V., Phang, J., Thompson, J., Htut, P. M., & Bowman, S. R.
Affiliations
New York University (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2021
Pages
2086-2105
OpenAlex
W3207316473
Cited by
189
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 69 · 2025: 62 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 6
FWCI
29.74
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (2046556, 1922658)
  • Samsung
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, question answering, bias benchmark, stereotypes, protected classes, gender bias, model bias evaluation, large language models

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