2018; Zhao et al., 2018a), machine translation (Vanmassenhove et al., 2018; Stanovsky et al., 2019),
sentiment analysis (Kiritchenko and Mohammad,
2018), and hate speech/toxicity detection (e.g.,
Park et al., 2018; Dixon et al., 2018), among others.
Although these papers have laid vital groundwork by illustrating some of the ways that NLP
systems can be harmful, the majority of them fail
to engage critically with what constitutes “bias”
in the ﬁrst place. Despite the fact that analyzing
“bias” is an inherently normative process—in
which some system behaviors are deemed good
and others harmful—papers on “bias” in NLP
systems are rife with unstated assumptions about
what kinds of system behaviors are harmful, in
what ways, to whom, and why. Indeed, the term
“bias” (or “gender bias” or “racial bias”) is used
to describe a wide range of system behaviors, even
though they may be harmful in different ways, to
different groups, or for different reasons. Even
papers analyzing “bias” in NLP systems developed
for the same task often conceptualize it differently.
For example, the following system behaviors
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