contribute to “social injustice” (itself undeﬁned).
Papers’ motivations sometimes include no normative reasoning. We found that some papers
(32%) are not motivated by any apparent normative
concerns, often focusing instead on concerns about
system performance. For example, the ﬁrst quote
below includes normative reasoning—namely that
models should not use demographic information
to make predictions—while the other focuses on
learned correlations impairing system performance.
“In [text classiﬁcation], models are expected to
make predictions with the semantic information
rather than with the demographic group identity
information ( e.g., ‘gay’, ‘black’) contained in the
sentences. ” —Zhang et al. (2020a)
“An over-prevalence of some gendered forms in the
training data leads to translations with identiﬁable
errors. Translations are better for sentences
involving men and for sentences containing
stereotypical gender roles. ”
—Saunders and Byrne (2020)
Even when papers do state clear motivations,
they are often unclear about why the system behaviors that are described as “bias” are harmful, in what ways, and to whom. We found that
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