CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 1

CHBias: Bias Evaluation and Mitigation of Chinese Conversational Language Models

Zhao, Jiaxu, Fang, Meng, Shi, Zijing, Li, Yitong, Chen, Ling, Pechenizkiy, Mykola·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2305.11262arXiv 2305.11262
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

\textit{\textbf{\textcolor{red}{Warning}:} This paper contains content that may be offensive or upsetting.} Pretrained conversational agents have been exposed to safety issues, exhibiting a range of stereotypical human biases such as gender bias. However, there are still limited bias categories in current research, and most of them only focus on English. In this paper, we introduce a new Chinese dataset, CHBias, for bias evaluation and mitigation of Chinese conversational language models. Apart from those previous well-explored bias categories, CHBias includes under-explored bias categories, such as ageism and appearance biases, which received less attention. We evaluate two popular pretrained Chinese conversational models, CDial-GPT and EVA2.0, using CHBias. Furthermore, to mitigate different biases, we apply several debiasing methods to the Chinese pretrained models. Experimental results show that these Chinese pretrained models are potentially risky for generating texts that contain social biases, and debiasing methods using the proposed dataset can make response generation less biased while preserving the models' conversational capabilities.

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.2305.11262

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?

  • The CHBias dataset discovers bias risks in pre-trained models.

    “[256] proposes a Chinese conversational bias evaluation dataset CHBias, discovers bias risks in pre-trained models, and explores debiasing methods.”

    From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [256]

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: 45

  1. Siqi Bao, Huang He, Fan Wang, Hua Wu, and Haifeng Wang. 2020. Plato: Pre-trained dialogue generation model with discrete latent variable. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 85-96.
  2. Soumya Barikeri, Anne Lauscher, Ivan Vulić, and Goran Glavaš. 2021. Redditbias: A real-world resource for bias evaluation and debiasing of conversational lan- guage 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), pages 1941-1955.
  3. Rishi Bommasani, Drew A Hudson, Ehsan Adeli, Russ Altman, Simran Arora, Sydney von Arx, Michael S Bernstein, Jeannette Bohg, Antoine Bosse- lut, Emma Brunskill, et al. 2021. On the opportuni- ties and risks of foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.07258. · arXiv
  4. Shikha Bordia and Samuel 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.
  5. Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901.
  6. Aylin Caliskan, Joanna J Bryson, and Arvind Narayanan. 2017. Semantics derived automatically from lan- guage corpora contain human-like biases. Science, 356(6334):183-186.
  7. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2018. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understand- ing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.04805. · arXiv
  8. Emily Dinan, Angela Fan, Adina Williams, Jack Ur- banek, Douwe Kiela, and Jason Weston. 2020. Queens are powerful too: Mitigating gender bias in dialogue generation. In Proceedings of the 2020 Con- ference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 8173-8188.
  9. Steven Y Feng, Varun Gangal, Jason Wei, Sarath Chan- dar, Soroush Vosoughi, Teruko Mitamura, and Ed- uard Hovy. 2021. A survey of data augmentation approaches for nlp. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 968-988.
  10. Lucie Flekova, Jordan Carpenter, Salvatore Giorgi, Lyle Ungar, and Daniel Preoţiuc-Pietro. 2016. Analyzing biases in human perception of user age and gender from text. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meet- ing of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 843-854.
  11. Anthony G Greenwald, Debbie E McGhee, and Jor- dan LK Schwartz. 1998. Measuring individual differ- ences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. Journal of personality and social psychology, 74(6):1464.
  12. Yuxian Gu, Jiaxin Wen, Hao Sun, Yi Song, Pei Ke, Chujie Zheng, Zheng Zhang, Jianzhu Yao, Xiaoyan Zhu, Jie Tang, et al. 2022. Eva2. 0: Investigating open-domain chinese dialogue systems with large- scale pre-training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.09313. · arXiv
  13. Jian Guan, Zhuoer Feng, Yamei Chen, Ruilin He, Xi- aoxi Mao, Changjie Fan, and Minlie Huang. 2021. Lot: A benchmark for evaluating chinese long text understanding and generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.12960. · arXiv
  14. Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980. · arXiv
  15. Clary Krekula. 2007. The intersection of age and gen- der: Reworking gender theory and social gerontology. Current Sociology, 55(2):155-171.
  16. Anne Lauscher, Goran Glavaš, Simone Paolo Ponzetto, and Ivan Vulić. 2020. A general framework for im- plicit and explicit debiasing of distributional word vector spaces. In Proceedings of the AAAI Con- ference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 8131-8138.
  17. Nayeon Lee, Andrea Madotto, and Pascale Fung. 2019. Exploring social bias in chatbots using stereotype knowledge. In WNLP@ ACL, pages 177-180.
  18. Jiwei Li, Michel Galley, Chris Brockett, Jianfeng Gao, and Bill Dolan. 2015. A diversity-promoting objec- tive function for neural conversation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1510.03055. · arXiv
  19. Chia-Wei Liu, Ryan Lowe, Iulian V Serban, Michael Noseworthy, Laurent Charlin, and Joelle Pineau. 2016. How not to evaluate your dialogue system: An empirical study of unsupervised evaluation met- rics for dialogue response generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.08023. · arXiv
  20. Haochen Liu, Jamell Dacon, Wenqi Fan, Hui Liu, Zitao Liu, and Jiliang Tang. 2020a. Does gender matter? towards fairness in dialogue systems. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computa- tional Linguistics, pages 4403-4416.
  21. Haochen Liu, Wentao Wang, Yiqi Wang, Hui Liu, Zitao Liu, and Jiliang Tang. 2020b. Mitigating gender bias for neural dialogue generation with adversarial learning. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 893-903.
  22. Zeming Liu, Haifeng Wang, Zheng-Yu Niu, Hua Wu, Wanxiang Che, and Ting Liu. 2020c. Towards con- versational recommendation over multi-type dialogs. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the As- sociation for Computational Linguistics, pages 1036- 1049.
  23. 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.
  24. Moin Nadeem, Anna Bethke, and Siva Reddy. 2021. Stereoset: Measuring stereotypical bias in pretrained language 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), pages 5356-5371.
  25. Nikita Nangia, Clara Vania, Rasika Bhalerao, and Samuel Bowman. 2020. Crows-pairs: A challenge dataset for measuring social biases in masked lan- guage models. In Proceedings of the 2020 Confer- ence on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1953-1967.
  26. Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei- Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evalu- ation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics, pages 311-318.
  27. Ji Ho Park, Jamin Shin, and Pascale Fung. 2018. Re- ducing gender bias in abusive language detection. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empiri- cal Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2799-2804.
  28. Yusu Qian, Urwa Muaz, Ben Zhang, and Jae Won Hyun. 2019. Reducing gender bias in word-level language models with a gender-equalizing loss function. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics: Student Re- search Workshop, pages 223-228.
  29. Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9.
  30. Deborah L Rhode. 2010. The beauty bias: The injustice of appearance in life and law. Oxford University Press.
  31. Vasile Rus and Mihai Lintean. 2012. An optimal assess- ment of natural language student input using word- to-word similarity metrics. In International Confer- ence on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, pages 675-676. Springer.
  32. Emily Sheng, Kai-Wei Chang, Prem Natarajan, and Nanyun Peng. 2019. The woman worked as a babysit- ter: On biases in language generation. In Proceed- ings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th Inter- national Joint Conference on Natural Language Pro- cessing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 3407-3412.
  33. Emily Sheng, Kai-Wei Chang, Prem Natarajan, and Nanyun Peng. 2021. Societal biases in language generation: Progress and challenges. In 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), pages 4275-4293.
  34. Zijing Shi, Meng Fang, Yunqiu Xu, Ling Chen, and Yali Du. 2023. Stay moral and explore: Learn to behave morally in text-based games. In The Eleventh Inter- national Conference on Learning Representations.
  35. Jack Urbanek, Angela Fan, Siddharth Karamcheti, Saachi Jain, Samuel Humeau, Emily Dinan, Tim Rocktäschel, Douwe Kiela, Arthur Szlam, and Ja- son Weston. 2019. Learning to speak and act in a fantasy text adventure game. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natu- ral Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 673-683.
  36. Xiaoyang Wang, Chen Li, Jianqiao Zhao, and Dong Yu. 2021. Naturalconv: A chinese dialogue dataset towards multi-turn topic-driven conversation. In Pro- ceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelli- gence, volume 35, pages 14006-14014.
  37. Yida Wang, Pei Ke, Yinhe Zheng, Kaili Huang, Yong Jiang, Xiaoyan Zhu, and Minlie Huang. 2020. A large-scale chinese short-text conversation dataset. In CCF International Conference on Natural Language Processing and Chinese Computing, pages 91-103. Springer.
  38. Wenquan Wu, Zhen Guo, Xiangyang Zhou, Hua Wu, Xiyuan Zhang, Rongzhong Lian, and Haifeng Wang. 2019. Proactive human-machine conversation with explicit conversation goal. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3794-3804.
  39. Catherine Yeo and Alyssa Chen. 2020. Defining and evaluating fair natural language generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2008.01548. · arXiv
  40. Yizhe Zhang, Siqi Sun, Michel Galley, Yen-Chun Chen, Chris Brockett, Xiang Gao, Jianfeng Gao, Jingjing Liu, and William B Dolan. 2020. Dialogpt: Large- scale generative pre-training for conversational re- sponse generation. In Proceedings of the 58th An- nual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, pages 270-278.
  41. Jieyu Zhao, Tianlu Wang, Mark Yatskar, Vicente Or- donez, and Kai-Wei Chang. 2018. Gender bias in coreference resolution: Evaluation and debiasing methods. 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 15-20.
  42. Hao Zhou, Pei Ke, Zheng Zhang, Yuxian Gu, Yinhe Zheng, Chujie Zheng, Yida Wang, Chen Henry Wu, Hao Sun, Xiaocong Yang, et al. 2021. Eva: An open-domain chinese dialogue system with large-scale generative pre-training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.01547. · arXiv
  43. Hao Zhou, Chujie Zheng, Kaili Huang, Minlie Huang, and Xiaoyan Zhu. 2020a. Kdconv: A chinese multi-domain dialogue dataset towards multi-turn knowledge-driven conversation. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics, pages 7098-7108.
  44. Hao Zhou, Chujie Zheng, Kaili Huang, Minlie Huang, and Xiaoyan Zhu. 2020b. KdConv: A Chinese multi-domain dialogue dataset towards multi-turn knowledge-driven conversation. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics, pages 7098-7108, Online. As- sociation for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  45. Jingyan Zhou, Jiawen Deng, Fei Mi, Yitong Li, Yasheng Wang, Minlie Huang, Xin Jiang, Qun Liu, and He- len Meng. 2022. Towards identifying social bias in dialog systems: Frame, datasets, and benchmarks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.08011. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhao, J., Fang, M., Shi, Z., Li, Y., Chen, L., & Pechenizkiy, M.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2305.11262
arXiv
2305.11262
References
0
Type
Preprint
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/legalcode

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