Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 cited by

Perturbation Augmentation for Fairer NLP

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 2205.12586 v2 pith:WQNXSGA6 submitted 2022-05-25 cs.CL cs.AI

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

Unwanted and often harmful social biases are becoming ever more salient in NLP research, affecting both models and datasets. In this work, we ask whether training on demographically perturbed data leads to fairer language models. We collect a large dataset of human annotated text perturbations and train a neural perturbation model, which we show outperforms heuristic alternatives. We find that (i) language models (LMs) pre-trained on demographically perturbed corpora are typically more fair, and (ii) LMs finetuned on perturbed GLUE datasets exhibit less demographic bias on downstream tasks, and (iii) fairness improvements do not come at the expense of performance on downstream tasks. Lastly, we discuss outstanding questions about how best to evaluate the (un)fairness of large language models. We hope that this exploration of neural demographic perturbation will help drive more improvement towards fairer NLP.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. LLMs on Trial: Evaluating Judicial Fairness for Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new 177,100-case benchmark shows that 16 LLMs systematically vary criminal sentences based on extra-legal demographic and procedural details, revealing pervasive judicial unfairness.

  2. Investigating Intersectional Bias in Large Language Models using Confidence Disparities in Coreference Resolution

    cs.CL 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    The abstract claims LLMs show up to 40% coreference confidence disparities across intersectional identities, but the article body is an unrelated paper on robotic fruit handling.

  3. Mitigating Confounding in Speech-Based Dementia Detection through Weight Masking

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Masking weights that react to gender in a fine-tuned BERT reduces gender gaps in dementia predictions while keeping most of the detection accuracy.

  4. 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.

  5. The Societal Impact of Foundation Models: Advancing Evidence-based AI Policy

    cs.AI 2025-06 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

    A dissertation that synthesizes prior work on foundation models into a three-part framework: conceptual framing, empirical measurement (HELM, FMTI), and evidence-based AI policy.

Pith tools