REVIEW 2 cited by
Mitigating Language-Dependent Ethnic Bias in BERT
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
read the original abstract
BERT and other large-scale language models (LMs) contain gender and racial bias. They also exhibit other dimensions of social bias, most of which have not been studied in depth, and some of which vary depending on the language. In this paper, we study ethnic bias and how it varies across languages by analyzing and mitigating ethnic bias in monolingual BERT for English, German, Spanish, Korean, Turkish, and Chinese. To observe and quantify ethnic bias, we develop a novel metric called Categorical Bias score. Then we propose two methods for mitigation; first using a multilingual model, and second using contextual word alignment of two monolingual models. We compare our proposed methods with monolingual BERT and show that these methods effectively alleviate the ethnic bias. Which of the two methods works better depends on the amount of NLP resources available for that language. We additionally experiment with Arabic and Greek to verify that our proposed methods work for a wider variety of languages.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Identifying Implicit Bias in LLM-based Chat AI Toward People with Intellectual Disabilities
Across 25,000 stories from five LLMs, an LLM judge rated stories mentioning intellectual disabilities as more infantile, paternalistic, dependent, and inspirational than stories without the label.
-
Relative Bias: A Comparative Framework for Quantifying Bias in LLMs
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.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.