poorly matched to their motivations and do not engage with the relevant literature outside of NLP.
To help researchers and practitioners avoid these
pitfalls, we proposed three recommendations that
should guide work analyzing “bias” in NLP systems, and, for each, provided several concrete research questions. These recommendations rest on
a greater recognition of the relationships between
language and social hierarchies—a step that we
see as paramount to establishing a path forward.
Acknowledgments
This paper is based upon work supported by the
National Science Foundation Graduate Research
Fellowship under Grant No. 1451512. Any opinion, ﬁndings, and conclusions or recommendations
expressed in this material are those of the authors
and do not necessarily reﬂect the views of the National Science Foundation. We thank the reviewers
for their useful feedback, especially the suggestion to include additional details about our method.
References
Artem Abzaliev. 2019. On GAP coreference resolution shared task: insights from the 3rd place solution.
InProceedings of the Workshop on Gender Bias in
Natural Language Processing , pages 107–112, Florence, Italy.
ADA. 2018. Guidelines for Writing About People With Disabilities. ADA National Network.
https://bit.ly/2KREbkB.
Oshin Agarwal, Funda Durupinar, Norman I. Badler,
We survey 146 papers analyzing "bias" in NLP systems, finding that their
motivations are often vague, inconsistent, and lacking in normative reasoning,
despite the fact that analyzing "bias" is an inherently normative process. We
further find that these papers' proposed quantitative techniques for measuring
or mitigating "bias" are poorly matched to their motivations and do not engage
with the relevant literature outside of NLP. Based on these findings, we
describe the beginnings of a path forward by proposing three recommendations
that should guide work analyzing "bias" in NLP systems. These recommendations
rest on a greater recognition of the relationships between language and social
hierarchies, encouraging researchers and practitioners to articulate their
conceptualizations of "bias"---i.e., what kinds of system behaviors are
harmful, in what ways, to whom, and why, as well as the normative reasoning
underlying these statements---and to center work around the lived experiences
of members of communities affected by NLP systems, while interrogating and
reimagining the power relations between technologists and such communities.
Su Lin Blodgett Solon Barocas Hal Daumé III Hanna Wallach