Predictive Biases in Natural Language Processing Models: A Conceptual Framework and Overview

An increasing number of works in natural language processing have addressed the effect of bias on the predicted outcomes, introducing mitigation techniques that act on different parts of the standard NLP pipeline (data and models). However, these works have been conducted in isolation, without a unifying framework to organize efforts within the field. This leads to repetitive approaches, and puts an undue focus on the effects of bias, rather than on their origins. Research focused on bias symptoms rather than the underlying origins could limit the development of effective countermeasures. In this paper, we propose a unifying conceptualization: the predictive bias framework for NLP. We summarize the NLP literature and propose a general mathematical definition of predictive bias in NLP along with a conceptual framework, differentiating four main origins of biases: label bias, selection bias, model overamplification, and semantic bias. We discuss how past work has countered each bias origin. Our framework serves to guide an introductory overview of predictive bias in NLP, integrating existing work into a single structure and opening avenues for future research.

[1]  ChengXiang Zhai,et al.  Instance Weighting for Domain Adaptation in NLP , 2007, ACL.

[2]  Jieyu Zhao,et al.  Gender Bias in Coreference Resolution: Evaluation and Debiasing Methods , 2018, NAACL.

[3]  Alan W Black,et al.  Measuring Bias in Contextualized Word Representations , 2019, Proceedings of the First Workshop on Gender Bias in Natural Language Processing.

[4]  Fintan Costello,et al.  Surprisingly rational: probability theory plus noise explains biases in judgment. , 2012, Psychological review.

[5]  Daniel Jurafsky,et al.  Word embeddings quantify 100 years of gender and ethnic stereotypes , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[6]  Ingmar Weber,et al.  Demographic research with non-representative internet data , 2015 .

[7]  Dirk Hovy,et al.  Tagging Performance Correlates with Author Age , 2015, ACL.

[8]  Sharad Goel,et al.  The Measure and Mismeasure of Fairness: A Critical Review of Fair Machine Learning , 2018, ArXiv.

[9]  Ron Artstein,et al.  Survey Article: Inter-Coder Agreement for Computational Linguistics , 2008, CL.

[10]  Jure Leskovec,et al.  No country for old members: user lifecycle and linguistic change in online communities , 2013, WWW.

[11]  Mark Dredze,et al.  Shared Task : Depression and PTSD on Twitter , 2015 .

[12]  Dirk Hovy,et al.  Multitask Learning for Mental Health Conditions with Limited Social Media Data , 2017, EACL.

[13]  Shashi Narayan,et al.  Privacy-preserving Neural Representations of Text , 2018, EMNLP.

[14]  Alexandra Chouldechova,et al.  What’s in a Name? Reducing Bias in Bios without Access to Protected Attributes , 2019, NAACL.

[15]  P. Costa,et al.  Reinterpreting the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator from the perspective of the five-factor model of personality. , 1989, Journal of personality.

[16]  Rada Mihalcea,et al.  Women’s Syntactic Resilience and Men’s Grammatical Luck: Gender-Bias in Part-of-Speech Tagging and Dependency Parsing , 2019, ACL.

[17]  Matt Taddy,et al.  The Geometry of Culture: Analyzing the Meanings of Class through Word Embeddings , 2018, American Sociological Review.

[18]  Yoav Goldberg,et al.  Adversarial Removal of Demographic Attributes from Text Data , 2018, EMNLP.

[19]  Goran Glavas,et al.  A General Framework for Implicit and Explicit Debiasing of Distributional Word Vector Spaces , 2020, AAAI.

[20]  Malvina Nissim,et al.  Fair is Better than Sensational: Man is to Doctor as Woman is to Doctor , 2019, Computational Linguistics.

[21]  Murphy Choy,et al.  US Presidential Election 2012 Prediction using Census Corrected Twitter Model , 2012, ArXiv.

[22]  J. Henrich,et al.  The weirdest people in the world? , 2010, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[23]  Niranjan Balasubramanian,et al.  Human Centered NLP with User-Factor Adaptation , 2017, EMNLP.

[24]  Yejin Choi,et al.  The Risk of Racial Bias in Hate Speech Detection , 2019, ACL.

[25]  David Lazer,et al.  ConStance: Modeling Annotation Contexts to Improve Stance Classification , 2017, EMNLP.

[26]  Alan W Black,et al.  Black is to Criminal as Caucasian is to Police: Detecting and Removing Multiclass Bias in Word Embeddings , 2019, NAACL.

[27]  Luís C. Lamb,et al.  Assessing gender bias in machine translation: a case study with Google Translate , 2018, Neural Computing and Applications.

[28]  Daniel Kahneman,et al.  Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability , 1973 .

[29]  Jeffrey Dean,et al.  Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Space , 2013, ICLR.

[30]  Dirk Hovy,et al.  Challenges of studying and processing dialects in social media , 2015, NUT@IJCNLP.

[31]  Noah A. Smith,et al.  Evaluating Gender Bias in Machine Translation , 2019, ACL.

[32]  Udo Kruschwitz,et al.  Comparing Bayesian Models of Annotation , 2018, TACL.

[33]  Gregory J. Park,et al.  Gaining insights from social media language: Methodologies and challenges. , 2016, Psychological methods.

[34]  Matt Post,et al.  The Language Demographics of Amazon Mechanical Turk , 2014, TACL.

[35]  Harini Suresh,et al.  A Framework for Understanding Unintended Consequences of Machine Learning , 2019, ArXiv.

[36]  Jon M. Kleinberg,et al.  Discrimination in the Age of Algorithms , 2018, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[37]  Suresh Venkatasubramanian,et al.  On the (im)possibility of fairness , 2016, ArXiv.

[38]  Renato Miranda,et al.  Twitter population sample bias and its impact on predictive outcomes: A case study on elections , 2015, 2015 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM).

[39]  Jason Baldridge,et al.  Mind the GAP: A Balanced Corpus of Gendered Ambiguous Pronouns , 2018, TACL.

[40]  Adam Tauman Kalai,et al.  Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddings , 2016, NIPS.

[41]  David Jurgens,et al.  That's What Friends Are For: Inferring Location in Online Social Media Platforms Based on Social Relationships , 2013, ICWSM.

[42]  A. Culotta,et al.  Using County Demographics to Infer Attributes of Twitter Users , 2014 .

[43]  Mai ElSherief,et al.  Mitigating Gender Bias in Natural Language Processing: Literature Review , 2019, ACL.

[44]  Brendan T. O'Connor,et al.  A Latent Variable Model for Geographic Lexical Variation , 2010, EMNLP.

[45]  Brendan T. O'Connor,et al.  Racial Disparity in Natural Language Processing: A Case Study of Social Media African-American English , 2017, ArXiv.

[46]  J. Pennebaker,et al.  PERSONALITY PROCESSES AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES Words of Wisdom: Language Use Over the Life Span , 2003 .

[47]  K. Vohs,et al.  Psychology as the Science of Self-reports and Finger Movements Whatever Happened to Actual Behavior? , 2022 .

[48]  Megha Agrawal,et al.  Characterizing Geographic Variation in Well-Being Using Tweets , 2013, ICWSM.

[49]  Honghu Liu,et al.  Use of Internet panels to conduct surveys , 2015, Behavior research methods.

[50]  C. B. Colby The weirdest people in the world , 1973 .

[51]  P. Trudgill Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society , 1975 .

[52]  Trevor Darrell,et al.  Women also Snowboard: Overcoming Bias in Captioning Models , 2018, ECCV.

[53]  Bob Carpenter,et al.  The Benefits of a Model of Annotation , 2013, Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics.

[54]  Inioluwa Deborah Raji,et al.  Model Cards for Model Reporting , 2018, FAT.

[55]  Timnit Gebru,et al.  Datasheets for datasets , 2018, Commun. ACM.

[56]  Dirk Hovy,et al.  The Social Impact of Natural Language Processing , 2016, ACL.

[57]  Saif Mohammad,et al.  Examining Gender and Race Bias in Two Hundred Sentiment Analysis Systems , 2018, *SEMEVAL.

[58]  Dirk Hovy,et al.  Learning Whom to Trust with MACE , 2013, NAACL.

[59]  Luke Zettlemoyer,et al.  Don’t Take the Easy Way Out: Ensemble Based Methods for Avoiding Known Dataset Biases , 2019, EMNLP.

[60]  Yulia Tsvetkov,et al.  Incorporating Dialectal Variability for Socially Equitable Language Identification , 2017, ACL.

[61]  Fatemeh Almodaresi,et al.  On the Distribution of Lexical Features at Multiple Levels of Analysis , 2017, ACL.

[62]  J. Robins,et al.  A Structural Approach to Selection Bias , 2004, Epidemiology.

[63]  f. bianchi Can You Translate that into Man? Commercial Machine Translation Systems Include Stylistic Biases , 2020 .

[64]  Dirk Hovy,et al.  Demographic Factors Improve Classification Performance , 2015, ACL.

[65]  Maarten Sap,et al.  Mental Illness Detection at the World Well-Being Project for the CLPsych 2015 Shared Task , 2015, CLPsych@HLT-NAACL.

[66]  Emily M. Bender,et al.  Data Statements for Natural Language Processing: Toward Mitigating System Bias and Enabling Better Science , 2018, TACL.

[67]  Jonathan Herington,et al.  Measuring the Biases that Matter: The Ethical and Casual Foundations for Measures of Fairness in Algorithms , 2019, FAT.

[68]  Rachel Rudinger,et al.  Gender Bias in Coreference Resolution , 2018, NAACL.

[69]  Maarten Sap,et al.  The role of personality, age, and gender in tweeting about mental illness , 2015, CLPsych@HLT-NAACL.

[70]  Timothy Baldwin,et al.  Towards Robust and Privacy-preserving Text Representations , 2018, ACL.

[71]  Hal Daumé,et al.  Frustratingly Easy Domain Adaptation , 2007, ACL.

[72]  Maryam Najafian,et al.  A Transparent Framework for Evaluating Unintended Demographic Bias in Word Embeddings , 2019, ACL.

[73]  Dirk Hovy,et al.  Learning part-of-speech taggers with inter-annotator agreement loss , 2014, EACL.

[74]  R. Shprintzen,et al.  What's in a name? , 1990, The Cleft palate journal.

[75]  Sudeep Bhatia Associative Judgment and Vector Space Semantics , 2017, Psychological review.

[76]  David Yarowsky,et al.  Exploring Demographic Language Variations to Improve Multilingual Sentiment Analysis in Social Media , 2013, EMNLP.

[77]  Andrew Gelman,et al.  State-Level Opinions from National Surveys: Poststratification using Multilevel Logistic Regression , 2009 .

[78]  Arvind Narayanan,et al.  Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biases , 2016, Science.

[79]  Jieyu Zhao,et al.  Men Also Like Shopping: Reducing Gender Bias Amplification using Corpus-level Constraints , 2017, EMNLP.

[80]  Ali Farhadi,et al.  Situation Recognition: Visual Semantic Role Labeling for Image Understanding , 2016, 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR).

[81]  Roger Tourangeau,et al.  Summary Report of the AAPOR Task Force on Non-probability Sampling , 2013 .

[82]  J. Pennebaker,et al.  The Secret Life of Pronouns , 2003, Psychological science.

[83]  R. Berk An introduction to sample selection bias in sociological data. , 1983 .

[84]  Murphy Choy,et al.  A sentiment analysis of Singapore Presidential Election 2011 using Twitter data with census correction , 2011, ArXiv.

[85]  Spencer S. Swinton PREDICTIVE BIAS IN GRADUATE ADMISSIONS TESTS , 1981 .

[86]  Yoav Goldberg,et al.  Lipstick on a Pig: Debiasing Methods Cover up Systematic Gender Biases in Word Embeddings But do not Remove Them , 2019, NAACL-HLT.

[87]  Dirk Hovy,et al.  The Social and the Neural Network: How to Make Natural Language Processing about People again , 2018, PEOPLES@NAACL-HTL.

[88]  Yasmeen Hitti,et al.  Proposed Taxonomy for Gender Bias in Text; A Filtering Methodology for the Gender Generalization Subtype , 2019, Proceedings of the First Workshop on Gender Bias in Natural Language Processing.

[89]  Diyi Yang,et al.  Seekers, Providers, Welcomers, and Storytellers: Modeling Social Roles in Online Health Communities , 2019, CHI.

[90]  Ryan Cotterell,et al.  Counterfactual Data Augmentation for Mitigating Gender Stereotypes in Languages with Rich Morphology , 2019, ACL.

[91]  Cynthia Breazeal,et al.  Machine behaviour , 2019, Nature.

[92]  T. Widiger,et al.  Diagnostic categories or dimensions? A question for the Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders--fifth edition. , 2005, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[93]  M. Couper Is the sky falling? new technology, changing media, and the future of surveys , 2013 .