Link to paper

The full paper is available here.

You can also find the paper on PapersWithCode here.

Abstract

• Language models are not treating diverse demographic groups fairly.
• Most research on fairness has been focused on English.
• This paper looks at fairness in multilingual and non-English contexts.
• Current research is limited and cannot be scaled across languages and cultures.

Paper Content

Introduction

• Language models are susceptible to spurious correlations and encoding biases
• Representational harms refer to groups being misrepresented or underrepresented
• Allocational harms refer to inequitable distribution of resources and opportunities
• Bias can occur in multiple steps of the pipeline
• Most work on fairness in NLP is Anglo-centric
• NLP systems can reinforce and reproduce social and racial hierarchies
• Insufficient documentation of harms from unfair models
• Interplay between privacy, efficiency, and fairness in NLP is understudied

Metrics for measurement

• Monolingual systems have biases and challenges
• Bias in NLP models can be quantified with intrinsic and extrinsic measures
• WEAT and SEAT are commonly used metrics
• StereoSet and CrowS-Pair measure stereotypical proclivity
• Blodgett et al. (2021) points out flaws in data quality
• Other intrinsic measures have been proposed
• Recent studies compare metrics and provide insights into their potential drawbacks

Intrinsic vs extrinsic evaluation

• Intrinsic measures indicate the existence of representational bias in systems.
• Little work has been done on addressing bias in extrinsic evaluation.
• Extrinsic evaluation measures are important for bias mitigation objectives.
• Evaluating fairness on downstream task’s outputs allows us to gauge how a particular demographic may be affected by biases.
• Monolingual studies have unanswered questions and inconclusive results.
• Template-based data may be unreliable and natural sentence prompts should be used.

Fairness from the lens of multiple social dimensions

• Existing literature focuses on gender bias, not other dimensions like race and religion.
• Evaluation metrics should be able to evaluate harms over intersectional identities.
• Previous research has emphasized the importance of fairness evaluation and mitigation over intersectional identities.
• Most fairness measures do not account for intersectionality of identities.
• Need more work in benchmarking debiasing techniques to assess their effectiveness.

Linguistic aspects

• Linguistic variations between languages pose additional problems in multilingual NLP
• Gender has multiple definitions in linguistic terms
• Grammatical gender can affect bias in multilingual and monolingual spaces
• Referential gender deals with terms that address a person’s gender
• Lexical gender deals with terms that describe gender
• Bio-social gender involves a mixture of phenotypic traits, gender expression, and identity
• Variations in pronoun complexity and linguistic forms can lead to pronoun changes based on social dynamic

Grammatically gendered languages

• Linguistics recognizes multiple forms of gender
• Grammatically gendered languages have 2-20 forms of gender divisions
• English is not a grammatically gendered language
• Zhou et al. (2019) examines bias from the view of grammatically gendered languages
• Gonen et al. (2019) show that grammatical gender affects word representations
• Cultural context must be incorporated when curating data for languages
• Hovy and Yang (2021) claim NLP literature oversimplifies information content
• España-Bonet and Barrón-Cedeño (2022) advocate for culturally-sensitive datasets
• Kaneko et al. (2022) proposes a way to generate parallel corpora for other languages

Multilingual models

• Multilingual spaces allow words to be mapped to their equivalents in other languages
• Training multilingual language models can improve cross-lingual performance on low-resource languages
• Performance across languages begins to dip as the number of languages increases
• Few studies explore the impact of multilingual training on biases

An outline of fairness evaluation in the context of multilinguality

• Several datasets have been created for multilingual evaluation
• Zhao et al. (2020) quantified biases in multilingual spaces
• Factors that influence bias include language’s linguistic properties, target language used for alignment, and transfer learning
• Huang et al. (2020) released first multilingual Twitter corpus for hate speech detection
• Liang et al. (2020) proposed a novel debiasing method
• Câmara et al. (2022) studied gender and ethnicity in multilingual language models
• Kaneko et al. (2022) proposed a method to use parallel corpora to evaluate bias
• Wolfe and Caliskan (2022) and Wolfe et al. (2022) studied fairness in multimodal contexts
• Wang et al. (2022) studied fairness from a multilingual view in multimodal representations
• Talat et al. (2022) expressed criticism over primary data source for multilingual large language models being English

An outline of fairness mitigation in the context of multilinguality

• Multilingual spaces are composed of different languages with different properties
• Balancing corpus and transferring to a gendered language’s embedding space can reduce bias
• FEDA domain adaption technique can be used to mitigate bias in multilingual text classification
• Adversarial training, token masking, and instance weighting can reduce impact of data instances that lead to bias
• Zero-shot debiasing may be beneficial, but further study is needed to confirm

Problems in multilingual evaluation and mitigation

• Lack of datasets and literature for evaluation across tasks
• Monolingual research not replicated in multilingual setting
• Datasets neglect less-represented demographics
• Variations in annotator information can result in bias
• No work on evaluating bias in language contact settings
• Models may not learn useful representations of marginalized identities

Culture

• Language and culture are intrinsically linked.
• NLP research has historically focused on information content, not contextual information.
• Hovy and Yang (2021) proposed a taxonomy of 7 social factors to incorporate into models.
• Variations in language can be controlled by the speaker and receiver.
• Systems can discriminate against marginalized communities.
• Cultural taboos and stereotypes can be highly localized.
• Gender is often treated as a binary variable, but this does not reflect real-world settings.

Moving towards inclusive systems in all languages

• Multilingualism presents challenges in terms of fairness
• Current solutions may not be viable
• Language and social aspects are ever-evolving
• Social interactions from diverse linguistic backgrounds need to be studied
• Models can exhibit bias based on linguistic variations
• LLMs are often biased towards certain demographic strata
• Interdisciplinary and multicultural teams are needed to identify and mitigate bias
• Better evaluation benchmarks and data collection are needed
• Zero-shot techniques should be used with care in fairness-critical applications
• Multilingual models need to incorporate shared value systems

Limitations

• Examines fairness literature in languages other than English
• Identifies bias measurement and mitigation strategies
• Notes that authors have a heterogeneous background which may lead to missing diverse perspectives on linguistic and cultural aspects of bias