Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Identifying and Reducing Gender Bias in Word-Level Language Models

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 1904.03035 v1 pith:UM4PNQ6S submitted 2019-04-05 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords biasgendertextlanguagemodelreducingcorpusloss
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Many text corpora exhibit socially problematic biases, which can be propagated or amplified in the models trained on such data. For example, doctor cooccurs more frequently with male pronouns than female pronouns. In this study we (i) propose a metric to measure gender bias; (ii) measure bias in a text corpus and the text generated from a recurrent neural network language model trained on the text corpus; (iii) propose a regularization loss term for the language model that minimizes the projection of encoder-trained embeddings onto an embedding subspace that encodes gender; (iv) finally, evaluate efficacy of our proposed method on reducing gender bias. We find this regularization method to be effective in reducing gender bias up to an optimal weight assigned to the loss term, beyond which the model becomes unstable as the perplexity increases. We replicate this study on three training corpora---Penn Treebank, WikiText-2, and CNN/Daily Mail---resulting in similar conclusions.

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. The Democratic Paradox in Large Language Models' Underestimation of Press Freedom

    cs.CY 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Six LLMs systematically underrate press freedom in 180 countries, penalize freer countries most, and five give their home countries favorable treatment.

Pith tools