REVIEW 1 cited by
Adversarial Learning for Debiasing Knowledge Graph Embeddings
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Knowledge Graphs (KG) are gaining increasing attention in both academia and industry. Despite their diverse benefits, recent research have identified social and cultural biases embedded in the representations learned from KGs. Such biases can have detrimental consequences on different population and minority groups as applications of KG begin to intersect and interact with social spheres. This paper aims at identifying and mitigating such biases in Knowledge Graph (KG) embeddings. As a first step, we explore popularity bias -- the relationship between node popularity and link prediction accuracy. In case of node2vec graph embeddings, we find that prediction accuracy of the embedding is negatively correlated with the degree of the node. However, in case of knowledge-graph embeddings (KGE), we observe an opposite trend. As a second step, we explore gender bias in KGE, and a careful examination of popular KGE algorithms suggest that sensitive attribute like the gender of a person can be predicted from the embedding. This implies that such biases in popular KGs is captured by the structural properties of the embedding. As a preliminary solution to debiasing KGs, we introduce a novel framework to filter out the sensitive attribute information from the KG embeddings, which we call FAN (Filtering Adversarial Network). We also suggest the applicability of FAN for debiasing other network embeddings which could be explored in future work.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Filling in the Blanks? A Systematic Review and Theoretical Conceptualisation for Measuring WikiData Content Gaps
A systematic review of 45 studies on Wikidata content gaps yields a gap typology and a nine-dimension framework for measuring missing or biased knowledge.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.