Data: How are datasets collected, preprocessed, and labeled or annotated? What are
the impacts of annotation guidelines, annotator assumptions and perceptions (Olteanu
et al., 2019; Sap et al., 2019; Geiger et al.,
2020), and annotation aggregation processes (Pavlick and Kwiatkowski, 2019)?
Evaluation: How are NLP systems evaluated? What are the impacts of evaluation
metrics (Olteanu et al., 2017)? Are any
non-quantitative evaluations performed?
.How do NLP systems reproduce or transform
language ideologies? Which language varieties
or practices come to be deemed good or bad?
Might “good” language simply mean language
that is easily handled by existing NLP systems? For example, linguistic phenomena arising from many language practices (Eisenstein,
2013) are described as “noisy text” and often
viewed as a target for “normalization.” How
do the language ideologies that are reproduced
by NLP systems maintain social hierarchies?
.Which representational harms are being
measured or mitigated? Are these the most
normatively concerning harms, or merely
those that are well handled by existing algorithmic fairness techniques? Are there other
representational harms that might be analyzed?
4.2 Conceptualizations of “bias”
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