Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Bias is a Math Problem, AI Bias is a Technical Problem: 10-year Literature Review of AI/LLM Bias Research Reveals Narrow [Gender-Centric] Conceptions of 'Bias', and Academia-Industry Gap

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A review of 189 AI bias papers finds most never define bias, most focus on gender, and few reach implementation.

desk verdict A useful corpus-level extension of Blodgett et al. that currently undermines its own 82% stat by conflating 'no definition' with 'technical-only definition'; deserves review after a coding overhaul. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.11067 v1 pith:GLIQGGGS submitted 2025-08-14 cs.CY

Sourojit Ghosh , Kyra Wilson This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CY
keywords systematicliteraturereviewAIbiasLLMgenderfairnessresearchworkingdefinitiondebiasingacademia-industrygap
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that a decade of research on bias in AI and large language models is conceptually thin and lopsided. Reading 189 papers from four premier venues, the authors find that 82 percent never state a working definition of bias and 79.9 percent concentrate on gender bias, with race, age, religion, and nationality far behind. Only 10.6 percent of the papers suggest how their results could be put to use in real AI systems. If this picture is right, a large part of the fairness literature is measuring a narrow slice of bias without saying what bias means, which weakens both scientific comparison and practical impact.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is a hand-coded corpus: 189 papers, each labeled for whether it gives a working definition of 'bias,' which identity axes it targets, and whether it offers implementation recommendations. The corpus labels are the machinery because every reported percentage is just a tally over those labels, and the paper's conclusions about gender-centrism and the academia-industry gap come directly from those tallies.

What would settle it

A second coding team could re-run the review with a written screening protocol and inter-annotator agreement measures; if the shares of no-definition or gender-focused papers move substantially, the rates are not stable. A simpler check is to look at the 155 papers coded as having no working definition and ask whether any define bias operationally through their evaluation metric, since that would change the 82% count.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that AI/LLM bias research, as sampled from four leading venues over the past ten years, is dominated by gender-centered work and lacks a shared conceptual foundation. The headline numbers are 82% (155/189) with no working definition of bias, 79.9% (151/189) focusing on gender, and 10.6% (20/189) including real-world implementation recommendations. The authors interpret these patterns as evidence that bias is treated as a mathematical or technical problem first, with social and cultural dimensions secondary, and they argue the field needs broader coverage of marginalized non-Western communities and stronger links to practice.

Load-bearing premise

The percentages assume that the 189 papers chosen from four venues, under an unstated screening process, stand for AI/LLM bias research as a whole, and that the authors' binary coding of 'working definition' and 'gender focus' is reliable and reproducible.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the rates hold, a paper on AI bias is far more likely to be counted as about gender than about race, age, religion, or nationality, so broad statements about 'AI bias' are generalizing from a narrow slice of identity.
  • The 82% figure implies that most papers state that stereotypes exist and then move to technical mitigation without saying what would count as bias in their setting, which makes results hard to compare across papers.
  • The 10.6% implementation figure implies that even papers that successfully debias a model often stop at the model, so persistent real-world harms may not be addressed by the research.
  • A direct corollary is that future reviewers and venues can require a working definition of bias and an implementation section, which would shift the field's composition.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension would be to code the same 189 papers for whether they define bias operationally through a metric, such as an association test or a disparity score, even when they do not give a verbal definition; this could lower the 82% figure.
  • The gender-heavy focus may partly follow from the availability of standard word-embedding and occupation datasets, which create path dependence; the paper does not test this, but the pattern it documents is consistent with it.
  • The paper's coding categories could be re-run on a broader set of venues or on industry-facing practice reports; if the rates persist, the academia-industry gap would be confirmed outside the four selected venues.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper reports a systematic literature review of 189 AI/LLM bias papers drawn from ACL, FAccT, NeurIPS, and AAAI over the past 10 years. The central claims are that 82% (155/189) of these papers did not establish a working definition of "bias," that 79.9% (151/189) focus on gender bias, and that only 10.6% (20/189) include recommendations for real-world implementation. The authors further report lower coverage of race/ethnicity, age, religion, and nationality, and use these patterns to argue that the field has a narrow, gender-centric conception of bias and a weak academia-industry link. The abstract also situates the findings against Blodgett et al. (2020) and recommends stronger coverage of marginalized and non-Western populations.

Significance. If the quantitative findings were independently reproducible, this would be a useful descriptive contribution to the AI fairness literature: the identity-axis breakdown and the academia-industry gap are practically important, and the arithmetic in the abstract is internally consistent (155/189, 151/189, 20/189, 57/189, 39/189, 36/189, and 25/189 round to the stated percentages). The venue selection is appropriate, and the paper's call for broader demographic coverage is well motivated. However, the significance is conditional: the headline "working definition" statistic conflates two different observations, and no search protocol, coding manual, inter-annotator agreement, or corpus list is visible in the material supplied. As submitted, the results cannot be verified or reproduced, which limits the paper's contribution to a preliminary descriptive claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The 82% claim is internally ambiguous: the abstract first says 155/189 papers 'did not establish a working definition of bias,' but then characterizes the same papers as 'establishing only mathematical and technical definition of bias.' A mathematical/technical definition is still a definition, so the headline conflates 'no definition at all' with 'only a technical definition.' The paper must define the coding categories separately, report counts for each, and adjust the wording so the reader knows which claim is actually being made.
  2. [Abstract / Methods] No search strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria, screening process, coding protocol, inter-annotator agreement, or uncertainty estimates are reported in the material supplied. The extracted full text is not readable in the version provided, so I could not locate a methods section, a corpus list, or a codebook. For a literature review whose entire contribution is a set of prevalence percentages, the absence of these methodological details is load-bearing; they must be added or the percentages cannot be assessed.
  3. [Abstract] The claim that only 10.6% of papers 'include recommendations for how to implement their findings or contributions in real-world AI systems or design processes' depends on an unspecified boundary for what counts as a recommendation. It is unclear whether a released debiasing method, a code repository, an evaluation benchmark, or a design guideline would qualify. The coding definition should be stated, and examples of both counted and not-counted cases should be provided.
  4. [Abstract] The temporal claim that 94 of the 155 papers appeared in the last five years is presented as evidence that the field persisted after Blodgett et al. (2020), but the abstract gives no denominator of total corpus papers per year. If publication volume grew over the period, the raw count of 94/155 would be expected even with no change in the rate of technical-only definitions. The paper should report per-year proportions or a comparison with the overall publication rate.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The final sentence contains an incomplete grammatical structure: 'especially since many of the biases that our corpus contains several successful mitigation methods that still persist within the outputs of AI systems' is not a complete clause and should be rewritten.
  2. [Abstract] The percentages are reported with varying decimal precision (82% vs. 79.9%). Please use a consistent number of decimal places for all reported proportions and confirm that each percentage matches the stated fraction.
  3. [General] The text extract provided to the referee is heavily corrupted by character-encoding issues. Please ensure that the submitted version is a readable PDF or text file so that the methods, tables, and references can be independently checked.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

One definitional conflation inflates the 82% 'no working definition' statistic, but the review's other prevalence findings are descriptive codings and not circular.

  1. self definitional [Abstract, first emergent pattern (methods and codebook unreadable in supplied full text)]
    "82% (155/189) papers did not establish a working definition of "bias" for their purposes, opting instead to simply state that biases and stereotypes exist that can have harmful downstream effects while establishing only mathematical and technical definition of bias."

    The coding category 'working definition' is operationalized so that 'only mathematical and technical definition' is counted as its absence. Under that coding, the 155/189 figure is the complement of papers with a social or contextual definition, so it is true by construction rather than a neutral measurement of whether any definition of bias appeared. A mathematical or technical definition is still a definition, and the abstract's wording conflates 'no definition given' with 'no socially situated definition given.' Without a published codebook or inter-annotator agreement distinguishing these readings, the headline percentage encodes the authors' own preference for non-technical definitions.

full rationale

This is a systematic literature review rather than a derivation, so the circularity burden is low. There are no mathematical predictions or fitted parameters whose outputs reduce to their inputs. The central corpus facts, such as gender focus, race/ethnicity focus, age focus, religion focus, nationality focus, and implementation-recommendation presence, are descriptive codings of other papers and are externally checkable against the cited 189 papers. The only load-bearing definitional step is the 'working definition of bias' category: the abstract itself says the 155 papers 'did not establish a working definition' while 'establishing only mathematical and technical definition of bias,' which makes 'working definition' functionally mean 'socially or contextually situated definition.' The 82% finding is therefore partly an artifact of the authors' coding preference, and no codebook or inter-annotator agreement is reported to allow a reader to separate 'no definition' from 'technical definition only.' Because the paper's other major prevalence claims remain independent of this contested category, and because the citation to Blodgett et al. (2020) is external context rather than a self-citation chain, the overall circularity score is low. The supplied full text is unreadable mojibake, so the methods section, coding manual, and screening criteria could not be inspected; this limitation cuts against giving a higher score, since the contested coding cannot be confirmed from the abstract alone. Score 2 reflects one self-definitional conflation affecting the headline statistic, with the rest of the review's content being non-circular descriptive reporting.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No mathematical derivation or fitted parameters are involved. The central results rest on the sampling and coding assumptions listed above, which could not be audited from the abstract alone.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The four selected venues, ACL, FAccT, NeurIPS, and AAAI, together with the paper search procedure, yield a representative sample of AI/LLM bias research.
    The corpus percentages are generalized to the field; if venue selection or search terms are biased, the 82% and 79.9% figures do not describe the field as a whole. Stated in the abstract as coverage of four premier venues/organizations.
  • domain assumption Papers can be reliably classified into identity axes and as having or lacking a working definition of bias using the authors' coding criteria.
    No coding protocol, inter-annotator agreement, or definition of "working definition" is given in the abstract; the binary percentages assume this classification is consistent and reproducible.
  • domain assumption The presence of implementation recommendations in a paper is a valid proxy for the academia-industry gap.
    The 10.6% figure is interpreted as a concerning gap, but mentioning a recommendation in a paper may not measure actual industry transfer or adoption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bias is a Math Problem, AI Bias is a Technical Problem: 10-year Literature Review of AI/LLM Bias Research Reveals Narrow [Gender-Centric] Conceptions of 'Bias', and Academia-Industry Gap." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GLIQGGGS

@misc{pith2026250811067,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bias is a Math Problem, AI Bias is a Technical Problem: 10-year Literature Review of AI/LLM Bias Research Reveals Narrow [Gender-Centric] Conceptions of 'Bias', and Academia-Industry Gap},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GLIQGGGS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.11067}
}
read the original abstract

The rapid development of AI tools and implementation of LLMs within downstream tasks has been paralleled by a surge in research exploring how the outputs of such AI/LLM systems embed biases, a research topic which was already being extensively explored before the era of ChatGPT. Given the high volume of research around the biases within the outputs of AI systems and LLMs, it is imperative to conduct systematic literature reviews to document throughlines within such research. In this paper, we conduct such a review of research covering AI/LLM bias in four premier venues/organizations -- *ACL, FAccT, NeurIPS, and AAAI -- published over the past 10 years. Through a coverage of 189 papers, we uncover patterns of bias research and along what axes of human identity they commonly focus. The first emergent pattern within the corpus was that 82% (155/189) papers did not establish a working definition of "bias" for their purposes, opting instead to simply state that biases and stereotypes exist that can have harmful downstream effects while establishing only mathematical and technical definition of bias. 94 of these 155 papers have been published in the past 5 years, after Blodgett et al. (2020)'s literature review with a similar finding about NLP research and recommendation to consider how such researchers should conceptualize bias, going beyond strictly technical definitions. Furthermore, we find that a large majority of papers -- 79.9% or 151/189 papers -- focus on gender bias (mostly, gender and occupation bias) within the outputs of AI systems and LLMs. By demonstrating a strong focus within the field on gender, race/ethnicity (30.2%; 57/189), age (20.6%; 39/189), religion (19.1%; 36/189) and nationality (13.2%; 25/189) bias, we document how researchers adopt a fairly narrow conception of AI bias by overlooking several non-Western communities in fairness research, as we advocate for a stronger coverage of such populations. Finally, we note that while our corpus contains several examples of innovative debiasing methods across the aforementioned aspects of human identity, only 10.6% (20/189) include recommendations for how to implement their findings or contributions in real-world AI systems or design processes. This indicates a concerning academia-industry gap, especially since many of the biases that our corpus contains several successful mitigation methods that still persist within the outputs of AI systems and LLMs commonly used today. We conclude with recommendations towards future AI/LLM fairness research, with stronger focus on diverse marginalized populations.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Data-Driven Abdominal Phenotypes of Type 2 Diabetes in Lean, Overweight, and Obese Cohorts

    cs.CV 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    The abstract proposes that abdominal fat and pancreas characteristics are consistent type 2 diabetes markers in lean, overweight, and obese CT cohorts, but the provided full text does not match this study.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

117 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Abboud, K.; and Oz, G. 2024. Towards equitable natural language understanding systems for dialectal cohorts: Debiasing training data. In Proceedings of the 2024 Joint International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-COLING 2024), 16487--16499

    2024

  2. [2]

    Adewumi, T.; S \"o dergren, I.; Alkhaled, L.; Al-azzawi, S.; Simistira Liwicki, F.; and Liwicki, M. 2023. Bipol: Multi-Axes Evaluation of Bias with Explainability in Benchmark Datasets. In Mitkov, R.; and Angelova, G., eds., Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing, 1--10. Varna, Bulgaria: INCOMA L...

    2023

  3. [3]

    Ali, M.; Ghosh, S.; Rao, P.; Dhegaskar, R.; Jawort, S.; Medler, A.; Shi, M.; and Dasgupta, S. 2023. Taking S tock of C oncept I nventories in C omputing E ducation: A S ystematic L iterature R eview. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research, volume 1, 397--415

    2023

  4. [4]

    Amrhein, C.; Schottmann, F.; Sennrich, R.; and L \"a ubli, S. 2023. Exploiting Biased Models to De-bias Text: A Gender-Fair Rewriting Model. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), 4486--4506. Toronto, Canada: Association for Computational Linguistics

    2023

  5. [5]

    P.; Norton, M

    Apfelbaum, E. P.; Norton, M. I.; and Sommers, S. R. 2012. Racial color blindness: Emergence, practice, and implications. Current directions in psychological science, 21(3): 205--209

    2012

  6. [6]

    Arzaghi, M.; Carichon, F.; and Farnadi, G. 2024. Understanding Intrinsic Socioeconomic Biases in Large Language Models. In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, volume 7, 49--60

    2024

  7. [7]

    S.; and Hawn, A

    Baker, R. S.; and Hawn, A. 2022. Algorithmic bias in education. International journal of artificial intelligence in education, 1--41

    2022

  8. [8]

    Bansal, R. 2022. A survey on bias and fairness in natural language processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.09591

    arXiv 2022

Show all 117 references
  1. [9]

    Barocas, S.; Crawford, K.; Shapiro, A.; and Wallach, H. 2017. The problem with bias: Allocative versus representational harms in machine learning. In 9th Annual conference of the special interest group for computing, information and society

    2017

  2. [10]

    R.; and Maxwell, W

    Bertrand, A.; Belloum, R.; Eagan, J. R.; and Maxwell, W. 2022. How cognitive biases affect XAI-assisted decision-making: A systematic review. In Proceedings of the 2022 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, 78--91

    2022

  3. [11]

    Bianchi, F.; Kalluri, P.; Durmus, E.; Ladhak, F.; Cheng, M.; Nozza, D.; Hashimoto, T.; Jurafsky, D.; Zou, J.; and Caliskan, A. 2023. Easily accessible text-to-image generation amplifies demographic stereotypes at large scale. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairne...

    2023

  4. [12]

    Birhane, A. 2021. Algorithmic injustice: a relational ethics approach. Patterns, 2(2)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Birhane, A.; Kalluri, P.; Card, D.; Agnew, W.; Dotan, R.; and Bao, M. 2022 a . The values encoded in machine learning research. In 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 173--184

    2022

  6. [14]

    Brown, M.; Flowers, J.; Ventresque, A.; and L

    Birhane, A.; Ruane, E.; Laurent, T.; S. Brown, M.; Flowers, J.; Ventresque, A.; and L. Dancy, C. 2022 b . The forgotten margins of AI ethics. In Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 948--958

    2022

  7. [15]

    M.; and Nasrabadi, N

    Bishop, C. M.; and Nasrabadi, N. M. 2006. Pattern recognition and machine learning, volume 4. Springer

    2006

  8. [16]

    L.; Barocas, S.; Daum \'e III, H.; and Wallach, H

    Blodgett, S. L.; Barocas, S.; Daum \'e III, H.; and Wallach, H. 2020. Language (Technology) is Power: A Critical Survey of Bias in NLP . In Jurafsky, D.; Chai, J.; Schluter, N.; and Tetreault, J., eds., Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computationa...

    2020

  9. [17]

    Bommasani, R.; and Liang, P. 2024. Trustworthy social bias measurement. In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, volume 7, 210--224

    2024

  10. [18]

    Cabello, L.; Bugliarello, E.; Brandl, S.; and Elliott, D. 2023. Evaluating Bias and Fairness in Gender-Neutral Pretrained Vision-and-Language Models. In Bouamor, H.; Pino, J.; and Bali, K., eds., Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Proce...

    2023

  11. [19]

    gap between AI implementation and operation: ``data awareness

    Cabitza, F.; Campagner, A.; and Balsano, C. 2020. Bridging the ``last mile" gap between AI implementation and operation: ``data awareness” that matters. Annals of translational medicine, 8(7): 501

    2020

  12. [20]

    J.; and Narayanan, A

    Caliskan, A.; Bryson, J. J.; and Narayanan, A. 2017. Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biases. Science, 356(6334): 183--186

    2017

  13. [21]

    Chang, K.-W.; Prabhakaran, V.; and Ordonez, V. 2019. Bias and fairness in natural language processing. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJC...

    2019

  14. [22]

    H.; Chen, S.; Liu, Z.; Jiang, F.; and Wang, B

    Chen, G. H.; Chen, S.; Liu, Z.; Jiang, F.; and Wang, B. 2024. Humans or LLM s as the Judge? A Study on Judgement Bias. In Al-Onaizan, Y.; Bansal, M.; and Chen, Y.-N., eds., Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 8301--8327. Miam...

    2024

  15. [23]

    Czarnowska, P.; Vyas, Y.; and Shah, K. 2021. Quantifying social biases in NLP: A generalization and empirical comparison of extrinsic fairness metrics. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9: 1249--1267

    2021

  16. [24]

    Dammu, P. P. S.; Jung, H.; Singh, A.; Choudhury, M.; and Mitra, T. 2024. They are uncultured : Unveiling Covert Harms and Social Threats in LLM Generated Conversations. In Al-Onaizan, Y.; Bansal, M.; and Chen, Y.-N., eds., Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Method...

    2024

  17. [25]

    F.; et al

    Dennler, N.; Ovalle, A.; Singh, A.; Soldaini, L.; Subramonian, A.; Tu, H.; Agnew, W.; Ghosh, A.; Yee, K.; Peradejordi, I. F.; et al. 2023. Bound by the Bounty: Collaboratively Shaping Evaluation Processes for Queer AI Harms. In Proceedings of the 2023 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI...

    2023

  18. [26]

    Dev, S.; Goyal, J.; Tewari, D.; Dave, S.; and Prabhakaran, V. 2023. Building socio-culturally inclusive stereotype resources with community engagement. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36: 4365--4381

    2023

  19. [27]

    M.; and Srikumar, V

    Dev, S.; Li, T.; Phillips, J. M.; and Srikumar, V. 2020. On measuring and mitigating biased inferences of word embeddings. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, 7659--7666

    2020

  20. [28]

    Dev, S.; Sheng, E.; Zhao, J.; Amstutz, A.; Sun, J.; Hou, Y.; Sanseverino, M.; Kim, J.; Nishi, A.; Peng, N.; and Chang, K.-W. 2021. On Measures of Biases and Harms in NLP. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.03362

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Diehl Martinez, R.; Goriely, Z.; Caines, A.; Buttery, P.; and Beinborn, L. 2024. Mitigating Frequency Bias and Anisotropy in Language Model Pre-Training with Syntactic Smoothing. In Al-Onaizan, Y.; Bansal, M.; and Chen, Y.-N., eds., Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empiri...

    2024

  22. [30]

    D'ignazio, C.; and Klein, L. F. 2020. Data feminism. MIT press

    2020

  23. [31]

    Ding, L.; Yu, D.; Xie, J.; Guo, W.; Hu, S.; Liu, M.; Kong, L.; Dai, H.; Bao, Y.; and Jiang, B. 2022. Word embeddings via causal inference: Gender bias reducing and semantic information preserving. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, 118...

    2022

  24. [32]

    Dwivedi-Yu, J. 2024. F air P air: A Robust Evaluation of Biases in Language Models through Paired Perturbations. In Dinkar, T.; Attanasio, G.; Cercas Curry, A.; Konstas, I.; Hovy, D.; and Rieser, V., eds., Proceedings of Safety4ConvAI: The Third Workshop on Safety for Conversa...

    2024

  25. [33]

    Friedman, B.; and Nissenbaum, H. 1996. Bias in computer systems. ACM Transactions on information systems (TOIS), 14(3): 330--347

    1996

  26. [34]

    R.; and Einarsson, H

    Fri riksd \'o ttir, S. R.; and Einarsson, H. 2024. Gendered Grammar or Ingrained Bias? Exploring Gender Bias in I celandic Language Models. In Calzolari, N.; Kan, M.-Y.; Hoste, V.; Lenci, A.; Sakti, S.; and Xue, N., eds., Proceedings of the 2024 Joint International Conference ...

    2024

  27. [35]

    Gaci, Y.; Benatallah, B.; Casati, F.; and Benabdeslem, K. 2022. Debiasing Pretrained Text Encoders by Paying Attention to Paying Attention. In Goldberg, Y.; Kozareva, Z.; and Zhang, Y., eds., Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processin...

    2022

  28. [36]

    Gao, Y.; Xiong, Y.; Gao, X.; Jia, K.; Pan, J.; Bi, Y.; Dai, Y.; Sun, J.; Wang, H.; and Wang, H. 2023. Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10997, 2: 1

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Gert, B. 2004. Common M orality: D eciding what to do . Oxford University Press

    2004

  30. [38]

    Ghate, K.; Choudhry, A.; and Bannihatti Kumar, V. 2024. Evaluating Gender Bias in Multilingual Multimodal AI Models: Insights from an I ndian Context. In Fale \'n ska, A.; Basta, C.; Costa-juss \`a , M.; Goldfarb-Tarrant, S.; and Nozza, D., eds., Proceedings of the 5th Worksho...

    2024

  31. [39]

    Ghosh, S. 2024. I nterpretations, R epresentations, and S tereotypes of C aste within T ext-to- I mage G enerators. In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, volume 7, 490--502

    2024

  32. [40]

    Ghosh, S.; and Caliskan, A. 2023. ChatGPT P erpetuates G ender B ias in M achine T ranslation and I gnores N on- G endered P ronouns: F indings across B engali and F ive other L ow- R esource L anguages. AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society 2023, 901--912

    2023

  33. [41]

    Ghosh, S.; Gautam, S.; Venkit, P.; and Ghosh, A. 2025. Documenting Patterns of Exoticism of Marginalized Populations within Text-to-Image Generators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.02937

    2025 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Ghosh, S.; Lutz, N.; and Caliskan, A. 2024. ``I don't see myself represented here at all": U ser E xperiences of S table D iffusion O utputs C ontaining R epresentational H arms across G ender I dentities and N ationalities. In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Eth...

    2024

  35. [43]

    Guan, X.; Demchak, N.; Gupta, S.; Wang, Z.; Ertekin Jr., E.; Koshiyama, A.; Kazim, E.; and Wu, Z. 2025. SAGED : A Holistic Bias-Benchmarking Pipeline for Language Models with Customisable Fairness Calibration. In Rambow, O.; Wanner, L.; Apidianaki, M.; Al-Khalifa, H.; Eugenio,...

    2025

  36. [44]

    V.; Wiest, O.; and Zhang, X

    Guo, T.; Chen, X.; Wang, Y.; Chang, R.; Pei, S.; Chawla, N. V.; Wiest, O.; and Zhang, X. 2024. Large language model based multi-agents: A survey of progress and challenges. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01680

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Guo, W.; and Caliskan, A. 2021. Detecting emergent intersectional biases: Contextualized word embeddings contain a distribution of human-like biases. In Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society (AAAI/ACM AIES), 122--133

    2021

  38. [46]

    N.; Wilson, S.; and Passonneau, R

    Gupta, V.; Venkit, P. N.; Wilson, S.; and Passonneau, R. J. 2023. Sociodemographic Bias in Language Models: A Survey and Forward Path. arXiv e-prints, arXiv--2306

    2023

  39. [47]

    M.; Gon c alves Abrantes, F.; Zhu, H.; Sodunke, G.; Shtedritski, A.; and Kirk, H

    Hall, S. M.; Gon c alves Abrantes, F.; Zhu, H.; Sodunke, G.; Shtedritski, A.; and Kirk, H. R. 2023. Visogender: A dataset for benchmarking gender bias in image-text pronoun resolution. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36: 63687--63723

    2023

  40. [48]

    Han, P.; Kocielnik, R.; Saravanan, A.; Jiang, R.; Sharir, O.; and Anandkumar, A. 2024. C hat GPT Based Data Augmentation for Improved Parameter-Efficient Debiasing of LLM s. In Chakravarthi, B. R.; B, B.; Buitelaar, P.; Durairaj, T.; Kov \'a cs, G.; and Garc \'i a Cumbreras, M...

    2024

  41. [49]

    Han, X.; Shen, A.; Li, Y.; Frermann, L.; Baldwin, T.; and Cohn, T. 2022. F air L ib: A Unified Framework for Assessing and Improving Fairness. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, 60--71. Abu Dhabi, U...

    2022

  42. [50]

    Haraway, D. 1988. ‘Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective'. In Space, Gender, Knowledge: Feminist Readings, 53--72. Routledge

    1988

  43. [51]

    He, Z.; Wang, Y.; McAuley, J.; and Majumder, B. P. 2022. Controlling Bias Exposure for Fair Interpretable Predictions. In Goldberg, Y.; Kozareva, Z.; and Zhang, Y., eds., Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, 5854--5866. Abu Dhabi, United Arab ...

    2022

  44. [52]

    Herold, B.; Waller, J.; and Kushalnagar, R. 2022. Applying the stereotype content model to assess disability bias in popular pre-trained NLP models underlying AI-based assistive technologies. In Ninth Workshop on Speech and Language Processing for Assistive Technologies (SLPAT...

    2022

  45. [53]

    Hosseini, S.; Palangi, H.; and Awadallah, A. H. 2023. An Empirical Study of Metrics to Measure Representational Harms in Pre-Trained Language Models. In Ovalle, A.; Chang, K.-W.; Mehrabi, N.; Pruksachatkun, Y.; Galystan, A.; Dhamala, J.; Verma, A.; Cao, T.; Kumar, A.; and Gupt...

    2023

  46. [54]

    Huang, Y.; and Xiong, D. 2024. CBBQ : A C hinese Bias Benchmark Dataset Curated with Human- AI Collaboration for Large Language Models. In Calzolari, N.; Kan, M.-Y.; Hoste, V.; Lenci, A.; Sakti, S.; and Xue, N., eds., Proceedings of the 2024 Joint International Conference on C...

    2024

  47. [55]

    Jeyaraj, M.; and Delany, S. 2024. An Explainable Approach to Understanding Gender Stereotype Text. In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Gender Bias in Natural Language Processing (GeBNLP), 45--59

    2024

  48. [56]

    Jha, A.; Prabhakaran, V.; Denton, R.; Laszlo, S.; Dave, S.; Qadri, R.; Reddy, C.; and Dev, S. 2024. V i SAG e: A Global-Scale Analysis of Visual Stereotypes in Text-to-Image Generation. In Ku, L.-W.; Martins, A.; and Srikumar, V., eds., Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting o...

    2024

  49. [57]

    Ji, C.; Zhao, B.; Wang, Z.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Cheng, Y.; Feng, R.; and Zhang, X. 2025. RoBGuard: Enhancing LLMs to Assess Risk of Bias in Clinical Trial Documents. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Computational Linguistics, 1258--1277

    2025

  50. [58]

    Kaneko, M.; Imankulova, A.; Bollegala, D.; and Okazaki, N. 2022. Gender bias in masked language models for multiple languages. Proceedings of the 2022 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics

    2022

  51. [59]

    Kay, J.; Kasirzadeh, A.; and Mohamed, S. 2024. Epistemic injustice in generative AI . In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, volume 7, 684--697

    2024

  52. [60]

    Kearns, M.; Neel, S.; Roth, A.; and Wu, Z. S. 2018. Preventing fairness gerrymandering: Auditing and learning for subgroup fairness. In International conference on machine learning, 2564--2572. PMLR

    2018

  53. [61]

    R.; Jun, Y.; Volpin, F.; Iqbal, H.; Benussi, E.; Dreyer, F.; Shtedritski, A.; and Asano, Y

    Kirk, H. R.; Jun, Y.; Volpin, F.; Iqbal, H.; Benussi, E.; Dreyer, F.; Shtedritski, A.; and Asano, Y. 2021. Bias out-of-the-box: An empirical analysis of intersectional occupational biases in popular generative language models. Advances in neural information processing systems,...

    2021

  54. [62]

    Kitchenham, B. 2004. Procedures for P erforming S ystematic R eviews. 33

    2004

  55. [63]

    Knopf, J. W. 2006. Doing a literature review. PS: Political Science & Politics, 39(1): 127--132

    2006

  56. [64]

    Kohn, S. 2013. Affirmative Action Has Helped White Women More Than Anyone. TIME Magazine

    2013

  57. [65]

    Leidinger, A.; and Rogers, R. 2024. How are LLM s mitigating stereotyping harms? Learning from search engine studies. In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, volume 7, 839--854

    2024

  58. [66]

    Li, L.; Chen, J.; Lu, X.; Lu, Y.; Lin, H.; Zhou, S.; Zhu, H.; Wang, W.; Liu, Z.; Han, X.; et al. 2024. Debiasing In-Context Learning by Instructing LLMs How to Follow Demonstrations. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics ACL 2024, 7203--7215

    2024

  59. [67]

    Li, Y.; Zhang, G.; Yang, B.; Lin, C.; Ragni, A.; Wang, S.; and Fu, J. 2022. HERB : Measuring Hierarchical Regional Bias in Pre-trained Language Models. In He, Y.; Ji, H.; Li, S.; Liu, Y.; and Chang, C.-H., eds., Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: AACL-I...

    2022

  60. [68]

    Luccioni, S.; Akiki, C.; Mitchell, M.; and Jernite, Y. 2024. Stable bias: Evaluating societal representations in diffusion models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36

    2024

  61. [69]

    Luo, H.; and Glass, J. 2023. Logic Against Bias: Textual Entailment Mitigates Stereotypical Sentence Reasoning. In Vlachos, A.; and Augenstein, I., eds., Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 1243--1254. Du...

    2023

  62. [70]

    K.; and Bennett, C

    Mack, A.; Qadri, R.; Denton, R.; Kane, S. K.; and Bennett, C. L. 2024. `` T hey only care to show us the wheelchair”: Disability Representation in text-to-image AI models. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    2024

  63. [71]

    accessibility research

    Mack, K. A.; McDonnell, E.; Jain, D.; Lu Wang, L.; E. Froehlich, J.; and Findlater, L. 2021. What do we mean by “accessibility research”? A literature survey of accessibility papers in CHI and ASSETS from 1994 to 2019. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors...

    2021

  64. [72]

    Marchiori Manerba, M.; Stanczak, K.; Guidotti, R.; and Augenstein, I. 2024. Social Bias Probing: Fairness Benchmarking for Language Models. In Al-Onaizan, Y.; Bansal, M.; and Chen, Y.-N., eds., Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Process...

    2024

  65. [73]

    Meade, N.; Poole-Dayan, E.; and Reddy, S. 2022. An Empirical Survey of the Effectiveness of Debiasing Techniques for Pre-trained Language Models. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), 1878--1898. Dub...

    2022

  66. [74]

    Mei, K.; Fereidooni, S.; and Caliskan, A. 2023. Bias against 93 stigmatized groups in masked language models and downstream sentiment classification tasks. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 1699--1710

    2023

  67. [75]

    Miceli, M.; Posada, J.; and Yang, T. 2022. Studying up machine learning data: Why talk about bias when we mean power? Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 6(GROUP): 1--14

    2022

  68. [76]

    D.; and Gebru, T

    Mitchell, M.; Wu, S.; Zaldivar, A.; Barnes, P.; Vasserman, L.; Hutchinson, B.; Spitzer, E.; Raji, I. D.; and Gebru, T. 2019. Model cards for model reporting. In Proceedings of the conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, 220--229

    2019

  69. [77]

    Mujtaba, D.; Mahapatra, N.; Arney, M.; Yaruss, J.; Gerlach-Houck, H.; Herring, C.; and Bin, J. 2024. Lost in Transcription: Identifying and Quantifying the Accuracy Biases of Automatic Speech Recognition Systems Against Disfluent Speech. In Duh, K.; Gomez, H.; and Bethard, S.,...

    2024

  70. [78]

    Olteanu, A.; Castillo, C.; Diaz, F.; and K c man, E. 2019. Social data: Biases, methodological pitfalls, and ethical boundaries. Frontiers in big data, 2: 13

    2019

  71. [79]

    Online Etymology Dictionary . 2025. bias, n

    2025

  72. [80]

    Oxford English Dictionary Online . 2025 a . bias, n

    2025

  73. [81]

    Oxford English Dictionary Online . 2025 b . bias, v

    2025

  74. [82]

    Y.; Schroeder, H.; Smith, K

    Pang, R. Y.; Schroeder, H.; Smith, K. S.; Barocas, S.; Xiao, Z.; Tseng, E.; and Bragg, D. 2025. Understanding the LLM-ification of CHI: Unpacking the Impact of LLMs at CHI through a Systematic Literature Review. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Com...

    2025

  75. [83]

    President of the United States . 2025. Executive Order 14179: Advancing U.S. Leadership in Artificial Intelligence

    2025

  76. [84]

    L.; and Denton, E

    Qadri, R.; Shelby, R.; Bennett, C. L.; and Denton, E. 2023. AI ’s R egimes of R epresentation: A Community-centered Study of Text-to-Image Models in South Asia. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 506--517

    2023

  77. [85]

    Raghavan, M.; Barocas, S.; Kleinberg, J.; and Levy, K. 2020. Mitigating bias in algorithmic hiring: Evaluating claims and practices. In Proceedings of the 2020 conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, 469--481

    2020

  78. [86]

    D.; Smart, A.; White, R

    Raji, I. D.; Smart, A.; White, R. N.; Mitchell, M.; Gebru, T.; Hutchinson, B.; Smith-Loud, J.; Theron, D.; and Barnes, P. 2020. Closing the AI accountability gap: Defining an end-to-end framework for internal algorithmic auditing. In Proceedings of the 2020 conference on fairn...

    2020

  79. [87]

    S.; Venditti, D.; Onorati, D.; and Zanzotto, F

    Ranaldi, L.; Ruzzetti, E. S.; Venditti, D.; Onorati, D.; and Zanzotto, F. M. 2024. A Trip Towards Fairness: Bias and De-Biasing in Large Language Models. In Bollegala, D.; and Shwartz, V., eds., Proceedings of the 13th Joint Conference on Lexical and Computational Semantics (*...

    2024

  80. [88]

    A.; and Choi, Y

    Sap, M.; Gabriel, S.; Qin, L.; Jurafsky, D.; Smith, N. A.; and Choi, Y. 2020. Social Bias Frames: Reasoning about Social and Power Implications of Language. In Jurafsky, D.; Chai, J.; Schluter, N.; and Tetreault, J., eds., Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Associat...

    2020

  81. [89]

    Saunders, D.; and Byrne, B. 2020. Reducing Gender Bias in Neural Machine Translation as a Domain Adaptation Problem. In Jurafsky, D.; Chai, J.; Schluter, N.; and Tetreault, J., eds., Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7724-...

    2020

  82. [90]

    S.; and Chakraborty, T

    Sharma, S.; Kulkarni, A.; Suresh, T.; Mathur, H.; Nakov, P.; Akhtar, M. S.; and Chakraborty, T. 2023. Characterizing the Entities in Harmful Memes: Who is the Hero, the Villain, the Victim? In Vlachos, A.; and Augenstein, I., eds., Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the Eur...

    2023

  83. [91]

    Shin, J.; Song, H.; Lee, H.; Jeong, S.; and Park, J. 2024. Ask LLM s Directly, What shapes your bias? : Measuring Social Bias in Large Language Models. In Ku, L.-W.; Martins, A.; and Srikumar, V., eds., Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024, 16122...

    2024

  84. [92]

    Snyder, H. 2019. Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of business research, 104: 333--339

    2019

  85. [93]

    Srinivasan, T.; and Bisk, Y. 2022. Worst of Both Worlds: Biases Compound in Pre-trained Vision-and-Language Models. In Hardmeier, C.; Basta, C.; Costa-juss \`a , M. R.; Stanovsky, G.; and Gonen, H., eds., Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Gender Bias in Natural Language Proce...

    2022

  86. [94]

    Stacey, J.; Minervini, P.; Dubossarsky, H.; Riedel, S.; and Rockt \"a schel, T. 2020. A voiding the H ypothesis- O nly B ias in N atural L anguage I nference via E nsemble A dversarial T raining. In Webber, B.; Cohn, T.; He, Y.; and Liu, Y., eds., Proceedings of the 2020 Confe...

    2020

  87. [95]

    Steed, R.; and Caliskan, A. 2021. Image representations learned with unsupervised pre-training contain human-like biases. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, 701--713

    2021

  88. [96]

    Suresh, H.; and Guttag, J. 2021. A framework for understanding sources of harm throughout the machine learning life cycle. In Equity and access in algorithms, mechanisms, and optimization, 1--9

    2021

  89. [97]

    C.; and Celis, L

    Tan, Y. C.; and Celis, L. E. 2019. Assessing social and intersectional biases in contextualized word representations. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32

    2019

  90. [98]

    Toro Isaza, P.; Xu, G.; Oloko, T.; Hou, Y.; Peng, N.; and Wang, D. 2023. Are Fairy Tales Fair? Analyzing Gender Bias in Temporal Narrative Event Chains of Children`s Fairy Tales. In Rogers, A.; Boyd-Graber, J.; and Okazaki, N., eds., Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of t...

    2023

  91. [99]

    K.; Pasquier, T.; and Crosas, M

    Trisovic, A.; Lau, M. K.; Pasquier, T.; and Crosas, M. 2022. A large-scale study on research code quality and execution. Scientific Data, 9(1): 60

    2022

  92. [100]

    Ueda, N.; Mita, M.; Oka, T.; and Komachi, M. 2024. Token-length Bias in Minimal-pair Paradigm Datasets. In Calzolari, N.; Kan, M.-Y.; Hoste, V.; Lenci, A.; Sakti, S.; and Xue, N., eds., Proceedings of the 2024 Joint International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Langua...

    2024

  93. [101]

    Varner, M.; and Lecher, C. 2023. How We Investigated L.A. ’s Homelessness Scoring System. The Markup

    2023

  94. [102]

    J.; and Wilson, S

    Venkit, P.; Srinath, M.; Gautam, S.; Venkatraman, S.; Gupta, V.; Passonneau, R. J.; and Wilson, S. 2023. The Sentiment Problem: A Critical Survey towards Deconstructing Sentiment Analysis. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processin...

    2023

  95. [103]

    N.; Srinath, M.; and Wilson, S

    Venkit, P. N.; Srinath, M.; and Wilson, S. 2022. A study of implicit bias in pretrained language models against people with disabilities. In Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, 1324--1332

    2022

  96. [104]

    N.; Srinath, M.; and Wilson, S

    Venkit, P. N.; Srinath, M.; and Wilson, S. 2023. Automated Ableism: An Exploration of Explicit Disability Biases in Sentiment and Toxicity Analysis Models. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Trustworthy Natural Language Processing (TrustNLP 2023), 26--34

    2023

  97. [105]

    Wan, Y.; Pu, G.; Sun, J.; Garimella, A.; Chang, K.-W.; and Peng, N. 2023. `Kelly is a Warm Person, Joseph is a Role Model': Gender Biases in LLM -Generated Reference Letters. In Bouamor, H.; Pino, J.; and Bali, K., eds., Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistic...

    2023

  98. [106]

    Wan, Y.; Subramonian, A.; Ovalle, A.; Lin, Z.; Suvarna, A.; Chance, C.; Bansal, H.; Pattichis, R.; and Chang, K.-W. 2024. Survey of bias in text-to-image generation: Definition, evaluation, and mitigation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.01030

    2024 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Wolfe, R.; Dangol, A.; Howe, B.; and Hiniker, A. 2024. Representation Bias of Adolescents in AI : A Bilingual, Bicultural Study. In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, volume 7, 1621--1634

    2024

  100. [108]

    Wu, Y.; Nakashima, Y.; and Garcia, N. 2024. Stable diffusion exposed: Gender bias from prompt to image. In Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, volume 7, 1648--1659

    2024

  101. [109]

    Yifei, L.; Ungar, L.; and Sedoc, J. 2023. Conceptor-Aided Debiasing of Large Language Models. In Bouamor, H.; Pino, J.; and Bali, K., eds., Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 10703--10727. Singapore: Association for Computat...

    2023

  102. [110]

    You, Z.; Lee, H.; Mishra, S.; Jeoung, S.; Mishra, A.; Kim, J.; and Diesner, J. 2024. Beyond Binary Gender Labels: Revealing Gender Bias in LLM s through Gender-Neutral Name Predictions. In Fale \'n ska, A.; Basta, C.; Costa-juss \`a , M.; Goldfarb-Tarrant, S.; and Nozza, D., e...

    2024

  103. [111]

    S.; Marshall, I

    Yun, H. S.; Marshall, I. J.; Trikalinos, T. A.; and Wallace, B. C. 2023. Appraising the potential uses and harms of LLMs for medical systematic reviews. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), 10122–--10139

    2023

  104. [112]

    Zeng, H.; Yue, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Shang, L.; and Wang, D. 2024. Fair federated learning with biased vision-language models. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics ACL 2024, 10002--10017

    2024

  105. [113]

    Zhang, H.; Sneyd, A.; and Stevenson, M. 2020. Robustness and Reliability of Gender Bias Assessment in Word Embeddings: The Role of Base Pairs. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 10th Interna...

    2020

  106. [114]

    Zhao, J.; Wang, T.; Yatskar, M.; Ordonez, V.; and Chang, K.-W. 2017. Men Also Like Shopping: Reducing Gender Bias Amplification using Corpus-level Constraints. In Palmer, M.; Hwa, R.; and Riedel, S., eds., Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Lang...

    2017

  107. [115]

    X.; Zhou, K.; Li, J.; Tang, T.; Wang, X.; Hou, Y.; Min, Y.; Zhang, B.; Zhang, J.; Dong, Z.; et al

    Zhao, W. X.; Zhou, K.; Li, J.; Tang, T.; Wang, X.; Hou, Y.; Min, Y.; Zhang, B.; Zhang, J.; Dong, Z.; et al. 2023. A survey of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.18223, 1(2)

    2023 arXiv

  108. [116]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint howpublished institution isbn journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all...

  109. [117]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.