PreprintCited by 31Ethics and Social Impacts of AIHate Speech and Cyberbullying DetectionSentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining

NLPositionality: Characterizing Design Biases of Datasets and Models

Open access
Santy, Sebastin, Liang, Jenny T., Bras, Ronan Le, Reinecke, Katharina, Sap, Maarten·2023·arXiv

Abstract

Design biases in NLP systems, such as performance differences for different populations, often stem from their creator's positionality, i.e., views and lived experiences shaped by identity and background. Despite the prevalence and risks of design biases, they are hard to quantify because researcher, system, and dataset positionality is often unobserved. We introduce NLPositionality, a framework for characterizing design biases and quantifying the positionality of NLP datasets and models. Our framework continuously collects annotations from a diverse pool of volunteer participants on LabintheWild, and statistically quantifies alignment with dataset labels and model predictions. We apply NLPositionality to existing datasets and models for two tasks -- social acceptability and hate speech detection. To date, we have collected 16,299 annotations in over a year for 600 instances from 1,096 annotators across 87 countries. We find that datasets and models align predominantly with Western, White, college-educated, and younger populations. Additionally, certain groups, such as non-binary people and non-native English speakers, are further marginalized by datasets and models as they rank least in alignment across all tasks. Finally, we draw from prior literature to discuss how researchers can examine their own positionality and that of their datasets and models, opening the door for more inclusive NLP systems.

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.2306.01943

Cites

76 of 76 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?

  • Humans exhibit variation in their ethical expectations towards machines, both within and across cultures.

    “Furthermore, humans exhibit variation in their ethical expectations towards machines, both within and across cultures 182 .”

    From Machine culture (2023) · cites this paper as [182]

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

Part of this paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.

Flagged first, then by citations

16 of the 92 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. AAAI. 2023. Reproducibility checklist. ACL. 2017. ACL Diversity Statistics.
  2. PsyArXiv.
  3. Emily Denton and Timnit Gebru. 2020. Tutorial on fairness, accountability, transparency, and ethics in computer vision at CVPR 2020.
  4. Thomas Hartvigsen, Saadia Gabriel, Hamid Palangi, Maarten Sap, Dipankar Ray, and Ece Kamar. 2022. Toxigen: Controlling language models to generate implied and adversarial toxicity. In Annual Meet- ing of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). · DOI · Paper page
  5. Joseph Henrich, Steven J Heine, and Ara Norenzayan. 2010. The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3):61-83.
  6. Liwei Jiang, Jena D Hwang, Chandra Bhagavatula, Ro- nan Le Bras, Jenny Liang, Jesse Dodge, Keisuke Sakaguchi, Maxwell Forbes, Jon Borchardt, Saadia Gabriel, et al. 2021. Can machines learn morality? the delphi experiment. arXiv e-prints, pages arXiv- 2110.
  7. András Kornai. 2013. Digital language death. PLOS ONE, 8(10):1-11. · DOI · Paper page
  8. Klaus Krippendorff. 2006. Reliability in content analy- sis: Some common misconceptions and recommenda- tions. Human Communication Research, 30(3):411- 433. · DOI · Paper page
  9. Michael Li. 2020. To build less-biased AI, hire a more diverse team. Harvard Business Review.
  10. Maggi Savin-Baden and Claire Howell-Major. 2013. Qualititative research: The essential guide to theory and practice. Qualitative Research: The Essential Guide to Theory and Practice. Routledge.
  11. Clay Spinuzzi. 2005. The methodology of participatory design. Technical Communication, 52(2):163-174.
  12. William Warner and Julia Hirschberg. 2012. Detecting hate speech on the world wide web. In Workshop on Language in Social Media, pages 19-26.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Santy, S., Liang, J. T., Bras, R. L., Reinecke, K., & Sap, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
Pages
9080-9102
ISSN
0736-587X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4385570549
Cited by
31
References
92
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6
FWCI
7.76
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1745016, 2230466, 2140739)
  • University of Washington
  • Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
Keywords
design bias, researcher positionality, NLP datasets, model bias, social acceptance, hate speech detection, annotator demographics, non-binary people, non-native English speakers, algorithmic fairness

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