Pith. sign in

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

arxiv 2109.05704 v2 pith:IISO3BHK submitted 2021-09-13 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords biasethnicmethodsbertlanguagemonolinguallanguagesmitigating
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
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.

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. Identifying Implicit Bias in LLM-based Chat AI Toward People with Intellectual Disabilities

    cs.CY 2026-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    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.

  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.

Pith tools