Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Should We Attend More or Less? Modulating Attention for Fairness

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 2305.13088 v2 pith:TJRUSYTD submitted 2023-05-22 cs.CL cs.AIcs.CYcs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.CYcs.LG
keywords attentionfairnessmodelslanguagemethodbiaseslessmodel
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

The advances in natural language processing (NLP) pose both opportunities and challenges. While recent progress enables the development of high-performing models for a variety of tasks, it also poses the risk of models learning harmful biases from the data, such as gender stereotypes. In this work, we investigate the role of attention, a widely-used technique in current state-of-the-art NLP models, in the propagation of social biases. Specifically, we study the relationship between the entropy of the attention distribution and the model's performance and fairness. We then propose a novel method for modulating attention weights to improve model fairness after training. Since our method is only applied post-training and pre-inference, it is an intra-processing method and is, therefore, less computationally expensive than existing in-processing and pre-processing approaches. Our results show an increase in fairness and minimal performance loss on different text classification and generation tasks using language models of varying sizes. WARNING: This work uses language that is offensive.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Do Biased Models Have Biased Thoughts?

    cs.CL 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

    The manuscript is internally inconsistent: the abstract describes an LLM fairness experiment while the body is a different paper on pilot-wave quantum mechanics, so no coherent result can be assessed.

  2. Exploring Accuracy-Fairness Trade-off in Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2024-11 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    A multi-objective evolutionary framework that merges and mutates fine-tuned language models yields a Pareto front of accuracy-fairness trade-offs on the BiasBios task.

Pith tools