Creating children’s stories through text generation is a creative task that requires stories to be both entertaining and suitable for young audiences. However, since current story generation systems often rely on pre-trained language models fine-tuned with limited story data, they may not always prioritize child-friendliness. This can lead to the unintended generation of stories containing problematic elements such as violence, profanity, and biases. Regrettably, despite the significance of these concerns, there is a lack of clear guidelines and benchmark datasets for ensuring content safety for children. In this paper, we introduce a taxonomy specifically tailored to assess content safety in text, with a strong emphasis on children’s well-being. We present PG-Story, a dataset that includes detailed annotations for both sentence-level and discourse-level safety. We demonstrate the potential of identifying unsafe content through self-diagnosis and employing controllable generation techniques during the decoding phase to minimize unsafe elements in generated stories.

Natural language often contains ambiguities that can lead to misinterpretation and miscommunication. While humans can handle ambiguities effectively by asking clarifying questions and/or relying on contextual cues and common-sense knowledge, resolving ambiguities can be notoriously hard for machines. In this work, we study ambiguities that arise in text-to-image generative models. We curate the Text-to-image Ambiguity Benchmark (TAB) dataset to study different types of ambiguities in text-to-image generative models. We then propose the Text-to-ImagE Disambiguation (TIED) framework to disambiguate the prompts given to the text-to-image generative models by soliciting clarifications from the end user. Through automatic and human evaluations, we show the effectiveness of our framework in generating more faithful images aligned with end user intention in the presence of ambiguities.

With the rapid growth in language processing applications, fairness has emerged as an important consideration in data-driven solutions. Although various fairness definitions have been explored in the recent literature, there is lack of consensus on which metrics most accurately reflect the fairness of a system. In this work, we propose a new formulation – accumulated prediction sensitivity, which measures fairness in machine learning models based on the model’s prediction sensitivity to perturbations in input features. The metric attempts to quantify the extent to which a single prediction depends on a protected attribute, where the protected attribute encodes the membership status of an individual in a protected group. We show that the metric can be theoretically linked with a specific notion of group fairness (statistical parity) and individual fairness. It also correlates well with humans’ perception of fairness. We conduct experiments on two text classification datasets – Jigsaw Toxicity, and Bias in Bios, and evaluate the correlations between metrics and manual annotations on whether the model produced a fair outcome. We observe that the proposed fairness metric based on prediction sensitivity is statistically significantly more correlated with human annotation than the existing counterfactual fairness metric.

Language models excel at generating coherent text, and model compression techniques such as knowledge distillation have enabled their use in resource-constrained settings. However, these models can be biased in multiple ways, including the unfounded association of male and female genders with gender-neutral professions. Therefore, knowledge distillation without any fairness constraints may preserve or exaggerate the teacher model’s biases onto the distilled model. To this end, we present a novel approach to mitigate gender disparity in text generation by learning a fair model during knowledge distillation. We propose two modifications to the base knowledge distillation based on counterfactual role reversal—modifying teacher probabilities and augmenting the training set. We evaluate gender polarity across professions in open-ended text generated from the resulting distilled and finetuned GPT–2 models and demonstrate a substantial reduction in gender disparity with only a minor compromise in utility. Finally, we observe that language models that reduce gender polarity in language generation do not improve embedding fairness or downstream classification fairness.