Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Does Gender Matter? Towards Fairness in Dialogue Systems

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1910.10486 v3 pith:R3AEXVLU submitted 2019-10-16 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords dialoguefairnesssystemsbeenbiascomputerdatasetissues
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Recently there are increasing concerns about the fairness of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in real-world applications such as computer vision and recommendations. For example, recognition algorithms in computer vision are unfair to black people such as poorly detecting their faces and inappropriately identifying them as "gorillas". As one crucial application of AI, dialogue systems have been extensively applied in our society. They are usually built with real human conversational data; thus they could inherit some fairness issues which are held in the real world. However, the fairness of dialogue systems has not been well investigated. In this paper, we perform a pioneering study about the fairness issues in dialogue systems. In particular, we construct a benchmark dataset and propose quantitative measures to understand fairness in dialogue models. Our studies demonstrate that popular dialogue models show significant prejudice towards different genders and races. Besides, to mitigate the bias in dialogue systems, we propose two simple but effective debiasing methods. Experiments show that our methods can reduce the bias in dialogue systems significantly. The dataset and the implementation are released to foster fairness research in dialogue systems.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Quantifying Misattribution Unfairness in Authorship Attribution

    cs.CL 2025-06 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    Authorship attribution models misattribute texts to some authors far more often than chance, and the risk is highest for authors whose author embeddings sit near the centroid.

  2. Relative Bias: A Comparative Framework for Quantifying Bias in LLMs

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A model is 'relatively biased' when its responses deviate from the consensus of a baseline LLM set, and this deviation can be scored by embedding distances or LLM judges plus equivalence tests.

  3. LFTF: Locating First and Then Fine-Tuning for Mitigating Gender Bias in Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-05 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    A block-localizing fine-tuning method for gender debiasing is presented, but its stated loss is inconsistent with its reported behavior and the evaluation tables contain duplicate rows.

Pith tools