Fine-tuned language models have been shown to exhibit biases against protected groups in a host of modeling tasks such as text classification and coreference resolution. Previous works focus on detecting these biases, reducing bias in data representations, and using auxiliary training objectives to mitigate bias during fine-tuning. Although these techniques achieve bias reduction for the task and domain at hand, the effects of bias mitigation may not directly transfer to new tasks, requiring additional data collection and customized annotation of sensitive attributes, and re-evaluation of appropriate fairness metrics. We explore the feasibility and benefits of upstream bias mitigation (UBM) for reducing bias on downstream tasks, by first applying bias mitigation to an upstream model through fine-tuning and subsequently using it for downstream fine-tuning. We find, in extensive experiments across hate speech detection, toxicity detection, occupation prediction, and coreference resolution tasks over various bias factors, that the effects of UBM are indeed transferable to new downstream tasks or domains via fine-tuning, creating less biased downstream models than directly fine-tuning on the downstream task or transferring from a vanilla upstream model. Though challenges remain, we show that UBM promises more efficient and accessible bias mitigation in LM fine-tuning. 12 1 Introduction The practice of fine-tuning pretrained language models (PTLMs or LMs), such as BERT (Devlin et al., 2019), has improved prediction performance in a wide range of NLP tasks. However, fine-tuned LMs may exhibit biases against certain protected groups (e.g., gender and ethnic minorities), 1 Code and data: https://github.com/INK-U SC/Upstream-Bias-Mitigation 2 The work was partially done when Xisen Jin was an intern at Snap Inc. as models may learn to associate certain features with positive or negative labels spuriously (Dixon et al., 2018), or propagate bias encoded in PTLMs to downstream classifiers (Caliskan et al., 2017; Bolukbasi et al., 2016). Among many examples, Kurita et al. (2019) demonstrates gender-bias in the pronoun resolution task when models are trained using BERT embeddings, and Kennedy et al. (2020) shows that hate speech classifiers fine-tuned from BERT result in more frequent false positive predictions for certain group identifier mentions ( e.g. ,  muslim ,  black ). Approaches for bias mitigation are mostly applied during fine-tuning to reduce bias in a specific downstream task or dataset (Park et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2018; Beutel et al., 2017) (see Fig. 1 (a)). For example, data augmentation approaches reduce the influence of spurious features in the original dataset (Dixon et al., 2018; Zhao et al., 2018; Park et al., 2018), and adversarial learning approaches generate debiased data representations that are exclusive to the downstream model (Kumar et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2018). These techniques act on biases particular to the given dataset, domain, or task, and require new bias mitigation when switching to a new downstream task or dataset. This can require auxiliary training objectives, the definition of task-specific fairness metrics, the annotation of bias attributes ( e.g. , identifying African American Vernacular English), and the collection of users' demographic data. These drawbacks make bias mitigation inaccessible to the growing community, fine-tuning LMs to new datasets and tasks. In contrast, we investigate initially mitigating bias while fine-tuning an upstream model in one or more upstream datasets, and subsequently achieving reduced bias when fine-tuning for downstream applications (Fig. 1 (d)), so that bias mitigation is no longer required in downstream training. Similar to transfer learning for enhancing predictive performance in common setups (Pan and Yang, 2010; Dai and Le, 2015), we suggest that LMs that undergo bias mitigation acquire inductive bias that is helpful for reducing harmful biases when fine-tuned on new domains and tasks. In four tasks with known bias factors  hate speech detection, toxicity detection, occupation prediction from short bios, and coreference resolution  we explore whether upstream bias mitigation of a LM followed by downstream fine-tuning reduces bias for the downstream model. Though previous work has addressed biases in frozen PTLM or word embeddings (Bolukbasi et al., 2016; Zhou et al., 2019; Bhardwaj et al., 2020; Liang et al., 2020; Ravfogel et al., 2020), for example by measuring associations between gender and occupations in an embedding space, they do not study their effect on downstream classifiers (Fig. 1 (b)), while some of them study the effects while keeping the embeddings frozen (Zhao et al., 2019; Kurita et al., 2019; Prost et al., 2019). Bias in these frozen representations can also be directly corrected by removing associations between feature and sensitive attributes (Elazar and Goldberg, 2018; Madras et al., 2018) (Fig. 1 (c)), but this does not allow predictions to be generated for new data. Our experiments address the following research questions: (a) whether mitigating a single bias factor in the upstream stage is maintained when fine-tuning on new examples from the same domain and task, (b) whether transfer is viable when the downstream domains and tasks are different from the upstream model, and (c) whether we can address multiple kinds of bias with a single upstream model. We perform these experiments under a generic transfer learning framework, noted as Upstream Bias Mitigation (UBM) for Downstream Fine-Tuning for convenience, which consists of two stages: first, in the upstream bias mitigation stage , a LM is fine-tuned with bias mitigation objectives on one or several upstream tasks, and subsequently the classification layer is re-initialized; then, in the downstream fine-tuning stage the encoder from the upstream model, jointly with the new classification layer, are again fine-tuned on a downstream task without additional bias mitigation steps. Using six datasets with previously recognized bias factors, our analysis show overall positive results for the questions above; still, there are challenges remaining to stabilize the results of bias mitigation in challenging setups, e.g. , the multi-bias factor setting. Our contributions are summarized as follows: (1) we propose a new research direction for mitigating bias in fine-tuned models; (2) we perform extensive experiments to study the viability of the upstream bias mitigation framework in various settings; (3) we demonstrate the effectiveness of this research direction, motivating further improvements, tests, and applications. We consider biases against protected groups in classifiers fined-tuned from LMs. In our present analysis, bias is defined as disparate model performance on different subsets of data which are associated with different demographic groups ( e.g. , instances that mention or are generated by different social groups) (Blodgett et al., 2020). Our evaluation of bias aligns with the definition of equalized odds and equal opportunities (Hardt et al., 2016) in previous works of fairness in machine learning. Here, we first outline our experimental setup for exploring the transferability of bias mitigation effects, in which we detail the process of applying UBM and pose three key research questions (section 2.1). We follow by introducing the bias factors studied and the corresponding classification tasks and datasets (section 2.2), and our evaluation protocols and metrics (section 2.3). Our goal is to evaluate the transferability of bias mitigation effects for one or multiple bias factors in downstream fine-tuned models. We follow an Upstream Bias Mitigation (UBM) for Downstream Fine-Tuning procedure, pictured in Figure 2. First, in the Upstream Bias Mitigation phase, an upstream Provide Encoder gs Settings One bias factor Framework No data access Multiple bias factors (train & debias) (train w/o debias) Upstream Model Downstream Model Upstream dataset  ! w/ attribute labels Downstream datasets  "   ! = ( " )   ! (source) model f s = h s  g s , composed of a text encoder g s and a classifier head h s , is trained on one or more upstream datasets D s with bias mitigation algorithms. The encoder g s is to be transferred to downstream (target) domains and tasks while the classifier head h s is discarded. Then, in the Downstream Fine-Tuning phase, the downstream model f t = h t  g t utilizes g s to initialize the encoder weights and is fine-tuned for prediction performance without bias mitigation approaches on downstream datasets D t . This UBM process is applied in three settings, summarized below, which each contribute to evaluating the transferability of bias mitigation effects. 1. Fine-Tuning on the Same Distribution. In the simplest setting, we fine-tune the downstream model over new examples from the same data distribution as the upstream model. In practice, each dataset is split into two halves, with one used for upstream bias mitigation and the other for downstream fine-tuning. 2. Cross-Domain and Cross-Task Fine-Tuning. Similar to how LMs are fine-tuned for various tasks and domains, in a more practical setup, we test whether transfer of bias mitigation effects is viable across domains and tasks. To achieve this, we apply bias mitigation while fine-tuning a LM on one dataset and perform fine-tuning on another. 3. Multiple Bias Factors. In the most challenging setup, we train a single upstream model to address multiple bias factors ( e.g. , both dialect bias and gender bias). Such upstream models can be trained with multi-task learning ( i.e. , jointly training over multiple datasets with shared encoder g but different classifier heads h ) while mitigating multiple kinds of bias. Subsequently, the resulting upstream model is transferred to downstream models as be-Dataset Prediction Task Bias GHC (Kennedy et al., 2018) Hate Group Identifier Stormfront (de Gibert et al., 2018) Hate Group Identifier DWMW (Davidson et al., 2017) Toxicity AAVE Dialect FDCL (Founta et al., 2018) Toxicity AAVE Dialect BiasBios (De-Arteaga et al., 2019) Occupation Gender Stereotyping OntoNotes 5.0 (Weischedel et al., 2013) Coreference Gender Stereotyping Table 1: Summary of tasks and bias included for study. To ensure our analysis holds true for a variety of domains, tasks, and bias factors, we experiment with three different bias factors studied in previous research along with six different datasets (also summarized in Table 1), described below. Group Identifier Bias. This bias refers to higher false positive rates of hate speech predictions for sentences containing specific group identifiers, which is harmful to protected groups by misclassifying innocuous text ( e.g. , I am a Muslim) as hate speech. We include two datasets for study, namely the Gab Hate Corpus (GHC; Kennedy et al., 2018) and the Stormfront corpus (de Gibert et al., 2018). Both datasets contain binary labels for hate and non-hate instances, though with differences in the labeling schemas and domains. AAVE Dialect Bias. Sap et al. (2019) show that offensive and hate speech classifiers yield a higher false positive rate on text written in African American Vernacular English (AAVE). This bias brings significant harm to the communities that uses AAVE, for example, by leading to the disproportionate removal of the text written in AAVE in social media platforms (Blodgett et al., 2020). We include two datasets for study: FDCL (Founta et al., 2018) and DWMW (Davidson et al., 2017). In both datasets, we treat abusive , hateful and spam together as harmful outcomes ( i.e. , false positives for each are harmful) to compute false positive rates. Following Sap et al. (2019), we use an off-the-shelf AAVE dialect predictor (Blodgett et al., 2016) to identify examples written in AAVE. Gender Stereotypical Bias. Zhao et al. (2018) summarize a list of occupations that are prone to be stereotyped in practice, leading to coreference resolutions models and occupation prediction models having biases in performance in proand anti-stereotypical instances when trained on short bios. We train the coreference resolution model on the OntoNotes 5.0 dataset (Weischedel et al., 2013) and the occupation classifier on the BiasBios (De-Arteaga et al., 2019) dataset. We evaluate the overall performance of the models on downstream tasks along with appropriate bias metrics for each bias factor, analyzed for each dataset and task in previous works. We expect UBM to minimally affect classification performance while improving on bias metrics. Classification Performance. We report in-domain F1 scores for GHC, Stormfront, OntoNotes 5.0, and accuracy scores for FDCL, DWMW and BiasBios. Following Zhang et al. (2018), for hate speech detection and toxicity detection datasets, we use the equal error rate (EER) threshold for prediction. Group Identifier Bias Metrics. To evaluate group identifier bias, we evaluate false positive rate (FPR) differences, noted as FPRD, between examples mentioning one of 25 group identifiers provided by Kennedy et al. (2020) and the overall FPR. In addition, we followed Kennedy et al. (2020) in using a New York Times articles (NYT) corpus of 25 k non-hate sentences, each mentioning one of 25 group identifiers. This corpus specifically provides an opportunity to measure FPRreported as (NYT Acc.), equivalent to 1  FPR. Additionally, following the evaluation protocol of Dixon et al. (2018) and Zhang et al. (2020), we incorporate the Identity Phrase Templates Test Sets (reported as IPTTS), which consists of 77 k hate and non-hate examples mentioning group identifiers, generated with templates. Following these works, for IPTTS we compute FPRD as (cid:80) z | FPR z  FPR overall | , where FPR z is false positive rate on sentences with the group identifier z , and FPR overall is the overall false positive rate. of AAVE examples in the datasets and the noisy outputs of AAVE classifier (Blodgett et al., 2016), we expect the in-domain FPRD metrics to be noisy. Therefore, following Xia et al. (2020), we incorporate the BROD (Blodgett et al., 2016) dataset, which is a large unlabeled collection of Twitter posts written in l. Since in practice only a small portion of texts are toxic or spam, we treat all examples from BROD as normal , and report the accuracy (which equals 1  FPR) on the dataset. Gender Stereotype Metrics. We employ the WinoBias (Zhao et al., 2018) dataset which provides opportunities to evaluate models on pro-stereotypical and anti-stereotypical coreference examples. We report the differences in F1 (F1-Diff) on two subsets of data. On occupation prediction, following Ravfogel et al. (2020), we report mean differences of true positive rate (TPR) differences in predicting each occupation for men and women. Here, we detail the particular bias mitigation algorithms used for implementing UBM, as well as the other baselines used for verifying the transferability of bias mitigation effects. We implement UBM with two different bias mitigation algorithms in the upstream bias mitigation phase: explanation regularization (Kennedy et al., 2020), and adversarial de-biasing (Zhang et al., 2018; Madras et al., 2018; Xia et al., 2020), denoted here as UBM reg and UBM adv , respectively. UBM with Explanation Regularization. Explanation regularization reduces importance placed on spurious surface patterns ( i.e. , words or phrases) during upstream model training. We apply UBM reg to group identifier and AAVE dialect bias, where the set of spurious patterns are group identifiers and the most frequent words, from statistics of the dataset, used by AAVE speakers; we find explanation regularization not effective for gender bias. The importance of a surface pattern w  W in the input x , noted as  ( w, x ) is measured as the model prediction change when it is removed. The model is trained by optimizing the main learning objective (cid:96) while penalizing importance attributed to patterns w  W that exist in the input x . UBM with Adversarial De-biasing. In UBM adv , the upstream model is trained with adversarial debiasing techniques, so that sensitive attributes related to bias ( e.g. , the dialect of the sentence or the gender referenced in the sentence) cannot be predicted from the hidden representations z given by the encoder g . During training, an adversarial classifier head h adv is built upon the encoder and trained to predict sensitive attributes, while the encoder is optimized to prevent the adversarial classifier from success. Formally, the optimization objective is written as, min g,h max h adv (cid:96) c + (cid:96) adv ( h adv  g ( x ) , a ) , (2) where a notes the ground truth sensitive attribute, and (cid:96) adv is the cross entropy loss between the predicted sensitive attribute and the ground truth sensitive attribute. As mentioned in Sec. 2.1, upstream models can be trained to mitigate multiple bias factors with multi-task learning on multiple datasets. We separately apply bias mitigation algorithms for each dataset (sharing the same encoder) and note the algorithms applied in the subscript ( e.g. , UBM reg + adv ). Methods without Bias Mitigation. Two types of models were evaluated that did not address bias. First, the Vanilla model is a downstream classifier directly fine-tuned on downstream task from a LM ( e.g. , RoBERTa). Second, Van-Transfer is fine-tuned on upstream datasets without bias mitigation and fine-tuned on downstream datasets. Downstream Bias Mitigation. For reference, we show the results of directly applying explanation regularization, noted as Expl. Reg. , or adversarial de-biasing, noted as Adv. Learning , during downstream fine-tuning. In most cases, mitigating bias in downstream classifier should be the most effective way to reduce bias, though this is not always feasible in practice for reasons discussed above. We also consider two simple baselines that could reduce bias in downstream models via heuristics. Emb. Zero zeros out the word embedding of spurious surface patterns (using the same word list as explanation regularization) in PTLMs before fine-tuning. We also include Emb. Zero. Trans , which GHC B Metrics In-domainF1(  ) In-domainFPRD(  ) IPTTSFPRD(  ) NYTAcc(  ) Non-Transfer (GHC . B) Vanilla 37.91  2.5 35.64  2.2 21.50  2.8 68.55  20 Expl. zeros out embeddings of spurious surface patterns before fine-tuning from an upstream model. The method does not apply to cases where surface patterns related to bias ( e.g. , gendered pronouns) are crucial for prediction, e.g. , coreference resolution. In this section, we present the results of UBM in three settings following the order in Sec. 2.1: transferring to the same data distribution, transferring to different data distributions, transferring from an upstream model with bias mitigation for multiple bias factors. We follow these main analyses with an investigation of the impact of freezing encoder weights before downstream fine-tuning, and lastly with a brief exploration of how UBM's positive results are achieved. Implementation Details. In all experiments reported on below, models are initially fine-tuned from RoBERTa-base. The upstream model is trained for a fixed number of epochs and the checkpoint with the best prediction performance is transferred to the downstream model. See Appendix for more implementation details. We use D s  D t as the transfer notation, in which upstream and downstream datasets are respectively represented in the left and right-hand side of the arrow. We first briefly show the results when the downstream model sees new, unseen samples from the same data distribution as the upstream model. In this controlled setting, we isolate and test the basic viability of UBM, which requires that information from the upstream model is retained during downstream fine-tuning. GHC, Stormfront, FDCL and BiasBios were partitioned into two subsets with equal size, noted as subsets A and B of corresponding datasets, to train the upstream and downstream models respectively. Table 2 presents the results for mitigating group identifier bias in the GHC. We see an overall bias reduction, via UBM, by comparing with Vanilla training and Van-Transfer. We include full results and discussions for this simple setting in Appendix. Following the result that UBM is effective in the same-domain setting, we now move to analyzing cross-domain settings in greater depth. For hate speech classification, we perform transfer learning from GHC to Stormfront and from Stormfront to GHC; and for toxicity classification, we perform transfer learning from FDCL to DWMW. We also perform transfer learning from BiasBios (occupa-tion prediction) to OntoNotes 5.0 (coreference res-olution). Table 3 shows the results of cross-domain and task transfer learning and non-transfer baselines. Our findings are summarized below. UBM can reduce bias in different target domains and tasks compared to fine-tuning without bias mitigation. The results of cross-domain and task transfer learning ( i.e. , Stf.  GHC, GHC  Stf., FDCL  DWMW), show that transferring from a less biased upstream model (UBM Reg and UBM Adv ) leads to better downstream bias mitigation compared to directly training without bias mitigation in the target domain (Vanilla). Meanwhile, the in-domain classification performance has improved (on GHC and Stormfront) or been preserved (on DWMW). It is notable that directly mitigating bias (Expl. Reg., Adv. Learning) on DWMW is not effective, which is previously observed by Xia et al. (2020), while transferring from FDCL is successful. does not improve; however, as discussed in our metrics section, the in-domain FPRD is computed over a much smaller set of examples compared to NYT and IPTTS datasets, and is thus less reliable. UBM does not reduce bias compared to Vanilla training on OntoNotes 5.0, but achieves less bias compared to Van-Transfer. This result confirms the effect of bias mitigation in upstream models, but the transfer learning itself has increased the bias. Comparison with Emb. Zero and Emb. Zero. Trans . We find two alternative methods, Emb. Zero and Emb. Zero Trans, also reduce bias on some of the datasets. On GHC, Emb. Zero achieves an in-domain FPRD and IPTTS-FPRD lower than UBM. However, it comes with clear drop of in-domain classification performance. Having observed an overall positive effect of UBM across domains and tasks, next we present the results of experiments on mitigating multiple bias factors with a single upstream model. This involves training an upstream model with multiple bias mitigation objectives across multiple datasets, followed by fine-tuning on a single dataset without bias mitigation. We test three combinations of datasets. First, a multi-task model is trained to jointly mitigate group identifier bias and AAVE dialect bias using GHC and FDCL (GHC + FDCL), and transferred to Stormfront and DWMW. Next, a model is similarly trained jointly on group identifier and AAVE biases on and Stormfront and FDCL (Stf. + FDCL) and transferred to GHC and DWMW. Lastly, models were trained over source datasets 3 We find UBM Reg,Reg,Adv yield degenerated classifiers for OntoNotes (Test F1 < 46 . 00 ) in 5 out of 6 runs. The result is from one successful run. GHC, FDCL, BiasBios (GHC+FDCL+BiasBios) to mitigate all three bias factors, and transferred to Stormfront, DWMW, and OntoNotes. The results are shown in Table 4. Comparison to Single-Dataset Vanilla Baselines. As a basic measure of bias mitigation success, we compare multi-dataset models' results with single-dataset Vanilla training and Van-Transfer. We see UBM with GHC + FDCL successfully reduces both group identifier bias and AAVE dialect bias in downstream models. UBM with GHC + FDCL + BiasBios also successfully reduces group identifier bias in terms of IPTTS, FPRD (which is the most reliable metrics of bias given its large size), and AAVE bias. It also reduces gender stereotypical bias compared to Van-Transfer in some experimental runs, but in an unstable manner, demonstrated by the large variance of F1-Diff and degenerated runs of UBM Reg,Reg,Adv . Results of UBM on Stf. + FDCL are less promising. We find UBM Reg,Adv,Adv is not successful in reducing group identifier bias. UBM Reg,Reg,Adv could reduce bias on IPTTS-FPRD, but does not improve other metrics. Notably, UBM on Stf. + FDCL clearly underperform UBM on Stf. only. UBM Reg versus UBM Adv . Empirically, we find using explanation regularization on FDCL (UBM reg,reg , UBM reg,reg,adv ) instead of adversarial learning (UBM reg,adv , UBM reg,adv,adv ) consistently improves bias mitigation performance on other bias factors. Takeaways. Our results show it is possible to reduce multiple bias factors via UBM. However, we have shown that these effects are not automatic for each new dataset added to upstream models for multi-task bias mitigation. In the experiments above, we have shown that the effect of mitigating bias is partially preserved with simple fine-tuning. Next, we study whether freezing the encoders or discouraging their weight changes improves bias mitigation in the target domain, as they intuitively try to retain effect of bias mitigation. However, we find a counterintuitive result: these approaches typically do not achieve reduced downstream bias, and in fact reduce in-domain classification performance. Table 5 shows the results when we keep the weights frozen (Freeze), discouraging weights from changing with (cid:96) 2 -sp regularizer (Li et al., 2018, details in ap-pendix), or standard fine-tuning (fine-tune). In Stf. GHC, freezing the weights contributed to reducing the bias, while (cid:96) 2 -sp failed to help. In GHC  Stf and FDCL  DWMW, freezing the weights and (cid:96) 2 -sp both increased the bias. A possible reason is that by freezing the encoder, we reduce its expressive power. As a result, the encoder is prone 0 1 2 3 4 Epoch 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 G r a d i e n t o f ( w , x ) Van. We attempt to interpret why fine-tuning from a debiased upstream model remains less biased during fine-tuning from the perspective of gradient of importance attributed to words w related to bias factors ( e.g. , group identifiers) by the input occlusion algorithm. A large importance attribution usually induces bias. Figure 3 plots the importance attribution of group identifiers  ( w, x ) and the norm of its gradient w.r.t. parameters  of the encoder g , noted as ||   ( w, x ) || 2 . UBM reduces the gradient of  ( w, x ) , so that  ( w, x ) is less likely to change at the beginning of downstream fine-tuning . Fig. 3 shows UBM has not only reduced value of importance attributed to spurious patterns, but also reduced their gradients. The gradient norm is highly indicative about how the importance  ( w, x ) will change in the downstream model, because when the loss in Eq. 1 in the upstream model is minimized, the gradient    ( w, x ) has the same norm but the opposite direction as the main downstream classification objective   (cid:96) c . It implies that whether the upstream model converges at an optimum where both objectives agree ( i.e. , gradients are small) can be an important indicator of the success of UBM. Here we review approaches that inform the present work (techniques for bias mitigation) and are related to the basic idea of UBM. Mitigating bias in representations. Bias can be mitigated directly in representations of data. Zhang et al. (2018); Beutel et al. (2017) proposed training a classifier together with an adversarial predictor for sensitive attributes. Madras et al. (2018) further studied re-usable de-biased representations by training a new downstream classifier (potentially with a different classification task) using the learned representations. However, this practice relies on frozen representations (rather than models themselves), which precludes the possibility of generating predictions for new data. Mitigating bias in pretrained models. Another line of work addresses bias in pretrained models ( e.g. , word vectors, BERT, Zhou et al., 2019; May et al., 2019; Bhardwaj et al., 2020; Liang et al., 2020). Many such studies again focus on bias in frozen data representations, and do not study their effects on downstream classifiers. Others alternatively assess the propagation of bias from pretrained models to downstream classifiers: Ravfogel et al. (2020) study algorithms for mitigating bias in pretrained models by de-biasing the learned representations, which can subsequently be used in classifiers as frozen representations. Transferring learning of fairness and robustness. A few previous works have studied related research problems, with significant differences to our work. Though Schumann et al. (2019) theoretically analyzes the transferability of fairness across domains, it assumes simultaneous access of source and target domain data, which does not account for transferring upstream bias mitigation to arbitrary downstream fine-tuned models. Shafahi et al. (2020) study transfer learning of robustness to adversarial attacks under fine-tuning, but do not seek to mitigate bias. We observe that the effects of bias mitigation are indeed transferable in fine-tuning LMs. Future works in fine-tuning LMs can use UBM in order to easily apply the positive effects of bias mitigation methods to new domains and tasks without customized bias mitigation processes or access to sensitive user information. Though UBM does not rival directly mitigating bias on the downstream task, it is more efficient and accessible. Future works can develop the effectiveness of UBM beyond the default scenarios in this paper, and potentially apply it to tasks and settings beyond hate speech, toxicity classification, occupation prediction, and coreference resolution in English corpora. Our analysis demonstrates the effectiveness of Upstream Bias Mitigation for Downstream Fine-Tuning. As we stated in the paper, the reduced efforts of downstream bias mitigation will facilitate broader application of bias mitigation in the growing deep learning community. While we may expect to obtain an off-the-shelf language model that could reduce multiple kinds of bias with UBM, we emphasize that proper evaluation of bias may still be required in downstream side, especially for guaranteed bias mitigation. Currently, our initial analysis of UBM confirms that bias mitigation effects are transferable, but does not provide guarantees of bias mitigation or levels of bias mitigation in the direct setting. The findings in this analysis should identify the potential of UBM to the broader NLP and machine learning communities, which may be extended with new approaches within the UBM framework, or interpretation techniques (as in Sec. 4.5).
abstain abstain abstain objective objective result abstain other abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain objective abstain abstain abstain objective abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain method abstain abstain abstain other result objective method method abstain objective method method method abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain method abstain abstain method method abstain method abstain other abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain method method abstain abstain method method abstain abstain abstain method abstain method method abstain method method abstain method abstain abstain method abstain method method method abstain abstain method abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain method abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain method abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain result result abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain result result result abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain result abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain result abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain result abstain abstain abstain abstain result abstain abstain abstain result result abstain abstain abstain abstain result abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain result abstain result abstain result result result result abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain abstain other other other other other other other other other other abstain other other result abstain abstain objective abstain method abstain method abstain