taxonomy, we categorized the 146 papers’ motivations and techniques into the following categories:
.Allocational harms.
Papers
Category Motivation Technique
Allocational harms 30 4
Stereotyping 50 58
Other representational harms 52 43
Questionable correlations 47 42
Vague/unstated 23 0
Surveys, frameworks, and
meta-analyses20 20
Table 2: The categories into which the 146 papers fall.
.Representational harms:2
.Stereotyping that propagates negative generalizations about particular social groups.
.Differences in system performance for different social groups, language that misrepresents the distribution of different social
groups in the population, or language that
isdenigrating to particular social groups.
.Questionable correlations between system behavior and features of language that are typically associated with particular social groups.
.Vague descriptions of “bias” (or “gender
bias” or “racial bias”) or no description at all.
.Surveys, frameworks, and meta-analyses .
In Table 2 we provide counts for each of the
six categories listed above. (We also provide a
list of the papers that fall into each category in the
appendix.) Again, we note that the counts do not
sum to 146, because some papers state multiple
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