Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

WinoPron: Revisiting English Winogender Schemas for Consistency, Coverage, and Grammatical Case

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

arxiv 2409.05653 v3 pith:TSD2DUVK submitted 2024-09-09 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords biascoreferenceresolutionevaluatewinopronacrossdatasetforms
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

While measuring bias and robustness in coreference resolution are important goals, such measurements are only as good as the tools we use to measure them. Winogender Schemas (Rudinger et al., 2018) are an influential dataset proposed to evaluate gender bias in coreference resolution, but a closer look reveals issues with the data that compromise its use for reliable evaluation, including treating different pronominal forms as equivalent, violations of template constraints, and typographical errors. We identify these issues and fix them, contributing a new dataset: WinoPron. Using WinoPron, we evaluate two state-of-the-art supervised coreference resolution systems, SpanBERT, and five sizes of FLAN-T5, and demonstrate that accusative pronouns are harder to resolve for all models. We also propose a new method to evaluate pronominal bias in coreference resolution that goes beyond the binary. With this method, we also show that bias characteristics vary not just across pronoun sets (e.g., he vs. she), but also across surface forms of those sets (e.g., him vs. his).

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. Implicit Causality-biases in humans and LLMs as a tool for benchmarking LLM discourse capabilities

    cs.CL 2025-01 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Most tested LLMs fail to reproduce human implicit causality biases in coreference, coherence, and referring-expression form, even when they show partial coreference effects.

Pith tools