Societal stereotypes are at the center of a myriad of responsible AI interventions targeted at reducing the generation and propagation of potentially harmful outcomes. While these efforts are much needed, they tend to be fragmented and often address different parts of the issue without adopting a unified or holistic approach to social stereotypes and how they impact various parts of the machine learning pipeline. As a result, current interventions fail to capitalize on the underlying mechanisms that are common across different types of stereotypes, and to anchor on particular aspects that are relevant in certain cases. In this paper, we draw on social psychological research and build on NLP data and methods, to propose a unified framework to operationalize stereotypes in generative AI evaluations. Our framework identifies key components of stereotypes that are crucial in AI evaluation, including the target group, associated attribute, relationship characteristics, perceiving group, and context. We also provide considerations and recommendations for its responsible use.

Human annotation plays a core role in machine learning — annotations for supervised models, safety guardrails for generative models, and human feedback for reinforcement learning, to cite a few avenues. However, the fact that many of these human annotations are inherently subjective is often overlooked. Recent work has demonstrated that ignoring rater subjectivity (typically resulting in rater disagreement) is problematic within specific tasks and for specific subgroups. Generalizable methods to harness rater disagreement and thus understand the socio-cultural leanings of subjective tasks remain elusive. In this paper, we propose GRASP, a comprehensive disagreement analysis framework to measure group association in perspectives among different rater subgroups, and demonstrate its utility in assessing the extent of systematic disagreements in two datasets: (1) safety annotations of human-chatbot conversations, and (2) offensiveness annotations of social media posts, both annotated by diverse rater pools across different socio-demographic axes. Our framework (based on disagreement metrics) reveals specific rater groups that have significantly different perspectives than others on certain tasks, and helps identify demographic axes that are crucial to consider in specific task contexts.

Detecting named entities in text has long been a core NLP task. However, not much work has gone into distinguishing whether an entity mention is addressing the entity vs. referring to the entity; e.g., John, would you turn the light off? vs. John turned the light off. While this distinction is marked by a vocative case marker in some languages, many modern Indo-European languages such as English do not use such explicit vocative markers, and the distinction is left to be interpreted in context. In this paper, we present a new annotated dataset that captures the address vs. reference distinction in English, an automatic tagger that performs at 85% accuracy in making this distinction, and demonstrate how this distinction is important in NLP and computational social science applications in English language.

Social stereotypes negatively impact individuals’ judgments about different groups and may have a critical role in understanding language directed toward marginalized groups. Here, we assess the role of social stereotypes in the automated detection of hate speech in the English language by examining the impact of social stereotypes on annotation behaviors, annotated datasets, and hate speech classifiers. Specifically, we first investigate the impact of novice annotators’ stereotypes on their hate-speech-annotation behavior. Then, we examine the effect of normative stereotypes in language on the aggregated annotators’ judgments in a large annotated corpus. Finally, we demonstrate how normative stereotypes embedded in language resources are associated with systematic prediction errors in a hate-speech classifier. The results demonstrate that hate-speech classifiers reflect social stereotypes against marginalized groups, which can perpetuate social inequalities when propagated at scale. This framework, combining social-psychological and computational-linguistic methods, provides insights into sources of bias in hate-speech moderation, informing ongoing debates regarding machine learning fairness.

Majority voting and averaging are common approaches used to resolve annotator disagreements and derive single ground truth labels from multiple annotations. However, annotators may systematically disagree with one another, often reflecting their individual biases and values, especially in the case of subjective tasks such as detecting affect, aggression, and hate speech. Annotator disagreements may capture important nuances in such tasks that are often ignored while aggregating annotations to a single ground truth. In order to address this, we investigate the efficacy of multi-annotator models. In particular, our multi-task based approach treats predicting each annotators’ judgements as separate subtasks, while sharing a common learned representation of the task. We show that this approach yields same or better performance than aggregating labels in the data prior to training across seven different binary classification tasks. Our approach also provides a way to estimate uncertainty in predictions, which we demonstrate better correlate with annotation disagreements than traditional methods. Being able to model uncertainty is especially useful in deployment scenarios where knowing when not to make a prediction is important.

A common practice in building NLP datasets, especially using crowd-sourced annotations, involves obtaining multiple annotator judgements on the same data instances, which are then flattened to produce a single “ground truth” label or score, through majority voting, averaging, or adjudication. While these approaches may be appropriate in certain annotation tasks, such aggregations overlook the socially constructed nature of human perceptions that annotations for relatively more subjective tasks are meant to capture. In particular, systematic disagreements between annotators owing to their socio-cultural backgrounds and/or lived experiences are often obfuscated through such aggregations. In this paper, we empirically demonstrate that label aggregation may introduce representational biases of individual and group perspectives. Based on this finding, we propose a set of recommendations for increased utility and transparency of datasets for downstream use cases.

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 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.

Bias mitigation approaches reduce models’ dependence on sensitive features of data, such as social group tokens (SGTs), resulting in equal predictions across the sensitive features. In hate speech detection, however, equalizing model predictions may ignore important differences among targeted social groups, as hate speech can contain stereotypical language specific to each SGT. Here, to take the specific language about each SGT into account, we rely on counterfactual fairness and equalize predictions among counterfactuals, generated by changing the SGTs. Our method evaluates the similarity in sentence likelihoods (via pre-trained language models) among counterfactuals, to treat SGTs equally only within interchangeable contexts. By applying logit pairing to equalize outcomes on the restricted set of counterfactuals for each instance, we improve fairness metrics while preserving model performance on hate speech detection.

We present the results and main findings of the shared task at WOAH 5 on hateful memes detection. The task include two subtasks relating to distinct challenges in the fine-grained detection of hateful memes: (1) the protected category attacked by the meme and (2) the attack type. 3 teams submitted system description papers. This shared task builds on the hateful memes detection task created by Facebook AI Research in 2020.

Hate speech classifiers trained on imbalanced datasets struggle to determine if group identifiers like “gay” or “black” are used in offensive or prejudiced ways. Such biases manifest in false positives when these identifiers are present, due to models’ inability to learn the contexts which constitute a hateful usage of identifiers. We extract post-hoc explanations from fine-tuned BERT classifiers to detect bias towards identity terms. Then, we propose a novel regularization technique based on these explanations that encourages models to learn from the context of group identifiers in addition to the identifiers themselves. Our approach improved over baselines in limiting false positives on out-of-domain data while maintaining and in cases improving in-domain performance.

Official reports of hate crimes in the US are under-reported relative to the actual number of such incidents. Further, despite statistical approximations, there are no official reports from a large number of US cities regarding incidents of hate. Here, we first demonstrate that event extraction and multi-instance learning, applied to a corpus of local news articles, can be used to predict instances of hate crime. We then use the trained model to detect incidents of hate in cities for which the FBI lacks statistics. Lastly, we train models on predicting homicide and kidnapping, compare the predictions to FBI reports, and establish that incidents of hate are indeed under-reported, compared to other types of crimes, in local press.