Showing 1–14 of 14 results for author: Davani, A M

Risks of Cultural Erasure in Large Language Models

Authors: Rida Qadri, Aida M. Davani, Kevin Robinson, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran

Abstract: Large language models are increasingly being integrated into applications that shape the production and discovery of societal knowledge such as search, online education, and travel planning. As a result, language models will shape how people learn about, perceive and interact with global cultures making it important to consider whose knowledge systems and perspectives are represented in models. Re… ▽ More Large language models are increasingly being integrated into applications that shape the production and discovery of societal knowledge such as search, online education, and travel planning. As a result, language models will shape how people learn about, perceive and interact with global cultures making it important to consider whose knowledge systems and perspectives are represented in models. Recognizing this importance, increasingly work in Machine Learning and NLP has focused on evaluating gaps in global cultural representational distribution within outputs. However, more work is needed on developing benchmarks for cross-cultural impacts of language models that stem from a nuanced sociologically-aware conceptualization of cultural impact or harm. We join this line of work arguing for the need of metricizable evaluations of language technologies that interrogate and account for historical power inequities and differential impacts of representation on global cultures, particularly for cultures already under-represented in the digital corpora. We look at two concepts of erasure: omission: where cultures are not represented at all and simplification i.e. when cultural complexity is erased by presenting one-dimensional views of a rich culture. The former focuses on whether something is represented, and the latter on how it is represented. We focus our analysis on two task contexts with the potential to influence global cultural production. First, we probe representations that a language model produces about different places around the world when asked to describe these contexts. Second, we analyze the cultures represented in the travel recommendations produced by a set of language model applications. Our study shows ways in which the NLP community and application developers can begin to operationalize complex socio-cultural considerations into standard evaluations and benchmarks. △ Less

Submitted 1 January, 2025; originally announced January 2025.

Insights on Disagreement Patterns in Multimodal Safety Perception across Diverse Rater Groups

Authors: Charvi Rastogi, Tian Huey Teh, Pushkar Mishra, Roma Patel, Zoe Ashwood, Aida Mostafazadeh Davani, Mark Diaz, Michela Paganini, Alicia Parrish, Ding Wang, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Lora Aroyo, Verena Rieser

Abstract: AI systems crucially rely on human ratings, but these ratings are often aggregated, obscuring the inherent diversity of perspectives in real-world phenomenon. This is particularly concerning when evaluating the safety of generative AI, where perceptions and associated harms can vary significantly across socio-cultural contexts. While recent research has studied the impact of demographic difference… ▽ More AI systems crucially rely on human ratings, but these ratings are often aggregated, obscuring the inherent diversity of perspectives in real-world phenomenon. This is particularly concerning when evaluating the safety of generative AI, where perceptions and associated harms can vary significantly across socio-cultural contexts. While recent research has studied the impact of demographic differences on annotating text, there is limited understanding of how these subjective variations affect multimodal safety in generative AI. To address this, we conduct a large-scale study employing highly-parallel safety ratings of about 1000 text-to-image (T2I) generations from a demographically diverse rater pool of 630 raters balanced across 30 intersectional groups across age, gender, and ethnicity. Our study shows that (1) there are significant differences across demographic groups (including intersectional groups) on how severe they assess the harm to be, and that these differences vary across different types of safety violations, (2) the diverse rater pool captures annotation patterns that are substantially different from expert raters trained on specific set of safety policies, and (3) the differences we observe in T2I safety are distinct from previously documented group level differences in text-based safety tasks. To further understand these varying perspectives, we conduct a qualitative analysis of the open-ended explanations provided by raters. This analysis reveals core differences into the reasons why different groups perceive harms in T2I generations. Our findings underscore the critical need for incorporating diverse perspectives into safety evaluation of generative AI ensuring these systems are truly inclusive and reflect the values of all users. △ Less

Submitted 22 October, 2024; originally announced October 2024.

Comments: 20 pages, 7 figures

D3CODE: Disentangling Disagreements in Data across Cultures on Offensiveness Detection and Evaluation

Authors: Aida Mostafazadeh Davani, Mark Díaz, Dylan Baker, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran

Abstract: While human annotations play a crucial role in language technologies, annotator subjectivity has long been overlooked in data collection. Recent studies that have critically examined this issue are often situated in the Western context, and solely document differences across age, gender, or racial groups. As a result, NLP research on subjectivity have overlooked the fact that individuals within de… ▽ More While human annotations play a crucial role in language technologies, annotator subjectivity has long been overlooked in data collection. Recent studies that have critically examined this issue are often situated in the Western context, and solely document differences across age, gender, or racial groups. As a result, NLP research on subjectivity have overlooked the fact that individuals within demographic groups may hold diverse values, which can influence their perceptions beyond their group norms. To effectively incorporate these considerations into NLP pipelines, we need datasets with extensive parallel annotations from various social and cultural groups. In this paper we introduce the \dataset dataset: a large-scale cross-cultural dataset of parallel annotations for offensive language in over 4.5K sentences annotated by a pool of over 4k annotators, balanced across gender and age, from across 21 countries, representing eight geo-cultural regions. The dataset contains annotators' moral values captured along six moral foundations: care, equality, proportionality, authority, loyalty, and purity. Our analyses reveal substantial regional variations in annotators' perceptions that are shaped by individual moral values, offering crucial insights for building pluralistic, culturally sensitive NLP models. △ Less

Submitted 16 April, 2024; originally announced April 2024.

GeniL: A Multilingual Dataset on Generalizing Language

Authors: Aida Mostafazadeh Davani, Sagar Gubbi, Sunipa Dev, Shachi Dave, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran

Abstract: Generative language models are transforming our digital ecosystem, but they often inherit societal biases, for instance stereotypes associating certain attributes with specific identity groups. While whether and how these biases are mitigated may depend on the specific use cases, being able to effectively detect instances of stereotype perpetuation is a crucial first step. Current methods to asses… ▽ More Generative language models are transforming our digital ecosystem, but they often inherit societal biases, for instance stereotypes associating certain attributes with specific identity groups. While whether and how these biases are mitigated may depend on the specific use cases, being able to effectively detect instances of stereotype perpetuation is a crucial first step. Current methods to assess presence of stereotypes in generated language rely on simple template or co-occurrence based measures, without accounting for the variety of sentential contexts they manifest in. We argue that understanding the sentential context is crucial for detecting instances of generalization. We distinguish two types of generalizations: (1) language that merely mentions the presence of a generalization ("people think the French are very rude"), and (2) language that reinforces such a generalization ("as French they must be rude"), from non-generalizing context ("My French friends think I am rude"). For meaningful stereotype evaluations, we need to reliably distinguish such instances of generalizations. We introduce the new task of detecting generalization in language, and build GeniL, a multilingual dataset of over 50K sentences from 9 languages (English, Arabic, Bengali, Spanish, French, Hindi, Indonesian, Malay, and Portuguese) annotated for instances of generalizations. We demonstrate that the likelihood of a co-occurrence being an instance of generalization is usually low, and varies across different languages, identity groups, and attributes. We build classifiers to detect generalization in language with an overall PR-AUC of 58.7, with varying degrees of performance across languages. Our research provides data and tools to enable a nuanced understanding of stereotype perpetuation, a crucial step towards more inclusive and responsible language technologies. △ Less

Submitted 9 August, 2024; v1 submitted 8 April, 2024; originally announced April 2024.

GRASP: A Disagreement Analysis Framework to Assess Group Associations in Perspectives

Authors: Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Christopher Homan, Lora Aroyo, Aida Mostafazadeh Davani, Alicia Parrish, Alex Taylor, Mark Díaz, Ding Wang, Gregory Serapio-García

Abstract: Human annotation plays a core role in machine learning -- annotations for supervised models, safety guardrails for generative models, and human feedback for reinforcement learning, to cite a few avenues. However, the fact that many of these human annotations are inherently subjective is often overlooked. Recent work has demonstrated that ignoring rater subjectivity (typically resulting in rater di… ▽ More Human annotation plays a core role in machine learning -- annotations for supervised models, safety guardrails for generative models, and human feedback for reinforcement learning, to cite a few avenues. However, the fact that many of these human annotations are inherently subjective is often overlooked. Recent work has demonstrated that ignoring rater subjectivity (typically resulting in rater disagreement) is problematic within specific tasks and for specific subgroups. Generalizable methods to harness rater disagreement and thus understand the socio-cultural leanings of subjective tasks remain elusive. In this paper, we propose GRASP, a comprehensive disagreement analysis framework to measure group association in perspectives among different rater sub-groups, and demonstrate its utility in assessing the extent of systematic disagreements in two datasets: (1) safety annotations of human-chatbot conversations, and (2) offensiveness annotations of social media posts, both annotated by diverse rater pools across different socio-demographic axes. Our framework (based on disagreement metrics) reveals specific rater groups that have significantly different perspectives than others on certain tasks, and helps identify demographic axes that are crucial to consider in specific task contexts. △ Less

Submitted 13 June, 2024; v1 submitted 8 November, 2023; originally announced November 2023.

Comments: Presented as a long paper at NAACL 2024 main conference

Journal ref: 2024 Annual Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics

The Moral Foundations Reddit Corpus

Authors: Jackson Trager, Alireza S. Ziabari, Aida Mostafazadeh Davani, Preni Golazizian, Farzan Karimi-Malekabadi, Ali Omrani, Zhihe Li, Brendan Kennedy, Nils Karl Reimer, Melissa Reyes, Kelsey Cheng, Mellow Wei, Christina Merrifield, Arta Khosravi, Evans Alvarez, Morteza Dehghani

Abstract: Moral framing and sentiment can affect a variety of online and offline behaviors, including donation, pro-environmental action, political engagement, and even participation in violent protests. Various computational methods in Natural Language Processing (NLP) have been used to detect moral sentiment from textual data, but in order to achieve better performances in such subjective tasks, large set… ▽ More Moral framing and sentiment can affect a variety of online and offline behaviors, including donation, pro-environmental action, political engagement, and even participation in violent protests. Various computational methods in Natural Language Processing (NLP) have been used to detect moral sentiment from textual data, but in order to achieve better performances in such subjective tasks, large sets of hand-annotated training data are needed. Previous corpora annotated for moral sentiment have proven valuable, and have generated new insights both within NLP and across the social sciences, but have been limited to Twitter. To facilitate improving our understanding of the role of moral rhetoric, we present the Moral Foundations Reddit Corpus, a collection of 16,123 Reddit comments that have been curated from 12 distinct subreddits, hand-annotated by at least three trained annotators for 8 categories of moral sentiment (i.e., Care, Proportionality, Equality, Purity, Authority, Loyalty, Thin Morality, Implicit/Explicit Morality) based on the updated Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) framework. We use a range of methodologies to provide baseline moral-sentiment classification results for this new corpus, e.g., cross-domain classification and knowledge transfer. △ Less

Submitted 17 August, 2022; v1 submitted 10 August, 2022; originally announced August 2022.

Hate Speech Classifiers Learn Human-Like Social Stereotypes

Authors: Aida Mostafazadeh Davani, Mohammad Atari, Brendan Kennedy, Morteza Dehghani

Abstract: Social stereotypes negatively impact individuals' judgements about different groups and may have a critical role in how people understand language directed toward minority social groups. Here, we assess the role of social stereotypes in the automated detection of hateful language by examining the relation between individual annotator biases and erroneous classification of texts by hate speech clas… ▽ More Social stereotypes negatively impact individuals' judgements about different groups and may have a critical role in how people understand language directed toward minority social groups. Here, we assess the role of social stereotypes in the automated detection of hateful language by examining the relation between individual annotator biases and erroneous classification of texts by hate speech classifiers. Specifically, in Study 1 we investigate the impact of novice annotators' stereotypes on their hate-speech-annotation behavior. In Study 2 we examine the effect of language-embedded stereotypes on expert annotators' aggregated judgements in a large annotated corpus. Finally, in Study 3 we demonstrate how language-embedded stereotypes are associated with systematic prediction errors in a neural-network hate speech classifier. Our results demonstrate that hate speech classifiers learn human-like biases which can further perpetuate social inequalities when propagated at scale. This framework, combining social psychological and computational linguistic methods, provides insights into additional sources of bias in hate speech moderation, informing ongoing debates regarding fairness in machine learning. △ Less

Submitted 27 October, 2021; originally announced October 2021.

Dealing with Disagreements: Looking Beyond the Majority Vote in Subjective Annotations

Authors: Aida Mostafazadeh Davani, Mark Díaz, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran

Abstract: Majority voting and averaging are common approaches employed to resolve annotator disagreements and derive single ground truth labels from multiple annotations. However, annotators may systematically disagree with one another, often reflecting their individual biases and values, especially in the case of subjective tasks such as detecting affect, aggression, and hate speech. Annotator disagreement… ▽ More Majority voting and averaging are common approaches employed to resolve annotator disagreements and derive single ground truth labels from multiple annotations. However, annotators may systematically disagree with one another, often reflecting their individual biases and values, especially in the case of subjective tasks such as detecting affect, aggression, and hate speech. Annotator disagreements may capture important nuances in such tasks that are often ignored while aggregating annotations to a single ground truth. In order to address this, we investigate the efficacy of multi-annotator models. In particular, our multi-task based approach treats predicting each annotators' judgements as separate subtasks, while sharing a common learned representation of the task. We show that this approach yields same or better performance than aggregating labels in the data prior to training across seven different binary classification tasks. Our approach also provides a way to estimate uncertainty in predictions, which we demonstrate better correlate with annotation disagreements than traditional methods. Being able to model uncertainty is especially useful in deployment scenarios where knowing when not to make a prediction is important. △ Less

Submitted 11 October, 2021; originally announced October 2021.

On Releasing Annotator-Level Labels and Information in Datasets

Authors: Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Aida Mostafazadeh Davani, Mark Díaz

Abstract: A common practice in building NLP datasets, especially using crowd-sourced annotations, involves obtaining multiple annotator judgements on the same data instances, which are then flattened to produce a single "ground truth" label or score, through majority voting, averaging, or adjudication. While these approaches may be appropriate in certain annotation tasks, such aggregations overlook the soci… ▽ More A common practice in building NLP datasets, especially using crowd-sourced annotations, involves obtaining multiple annotator judgements on the same data instances, which are then flattened to produce a single "ground truth" label or score, through majority voting, averaging, or adjudication. While these approaches may be appropriate in certain annotation tasks, such aggregations overlook the socially constructed nature of human perceptions that annotations for relatively more subjective tasks are meant to capture. In particular, systematic disagreements between annotators owing to their socio-cultural backgrounds and/or lived experiences are often obfuscated through such aggregations. In this paper, we empirically demonstrate that label aggregation may introduce representational biases of individual and group perspectives. Based on this finding, we propose a set of recommendations for increased utility and transparency of datasets for downstream use cases. △ Less

Submitted 11 October, 2021; originally announced October 2021.

Improving Counterfactual Generation for Fair Hate Speech Detection

Authors: Aida Mostafazadeh Davani, Ali Omrani, Brendan Kennedy, Mohammad Atari, Xiang Ren, Morteza Dehghani

Abstract: Bias mitigation approaches reduce models' dependence on sensitive features of data, such as social group tokens (SGTs), resulting in equal predictions across the sensitive features. In hate speech detection, however, equalizing model predictions may ignore important differences among targeted social groups, as hate speech can contain stereotypical language specific to each SGT. Here, to take the s… ▽ More Bias mitigation approaches reduce models' dependence on sensitive features of data, such as social group tokens (SGTs), resulting in equal predictions across the sensitive features. In hate speech detection, however, equalizing model predictions may ignore important differences among targeted social groups, as hate speech can contain stereotypical language specific to each SGT. Here, to take the specific language about each SGT into account, we rely on counterfactual fairness and equalize predictions among counterfactuals, generated by changing the SGTs. Our method evaluates the similarity in sentence likelihoods (via pre-trained language models) among counterfactuals, to treat SGTs equally only within interchangeable contexts. By applying logit pairing to equalize outcomes on the restricted set of counterfactuals for each instance, we improve fairness metrics while preserving model performance on hate speech detection. △ Less

Submitted 3 August, 2021; originally announced August 2021.

Comments: 4-page paper Workshop on Online Abuse and Harms (ACL 2021)

On Transferability of Bias Mitigation Effects in Language Model Fine-Tuning

Authors: Xisen Jin, Francesco Barbieri, Brendan Kennedy, Aida Mostafazadeh Davani, Leonardo Neves, Xiang Ren

Abstract: Fine-tuned language models have been shown to exhibit biases against protected groups in a host of modeling tasks such as text classification and coreference resolution. Previous works focus on detecting these biases, reducing bias in data representations, and using auxiliary training objectives to mitigate bias during fine-tuning. Although these techniques achieve bias reduction for the task and… ▽ More Fine-tuned language models have been shown to exhibit biases against protected groups in a host of modeling tasks such as text classification and coreference resolution. Previous works focus on detecting these biases, reducing bias in data representations, and using auxiliary training objectives to mitigate bias during fine-tuning. Although these techniques achieve bias reduction for the task and domain at hand, the effects of bias mitigation may not directly transfer to new tasks, requiring additional data collection and customized annotation of sensitive attributes, and re-evaluation of appropriate fairness metrics. We explore the feasibility and benefits of upstream bias mitigation (UBM) for reducing bias on downstream tasks, by first applying bias mitigation to an upstream model through fine-tuning and subsequently using it for downstream fine-tuning. We find, in extensive experiments across hate speech detection, toxicity detection, occupation prediction, and coreference resolution tasks over various bias factors, that the effects of UBM are indeed transferable to new downstream tasks or domains via fine-tuning, creating less biased downstream models than directly fine-tuning on the downstream task or transferring from a vanilla upstream model. Though challenges remain, we show that UBM promises more efficient and accessible bias mitigation in LM fine-tuning. △ Less

Submitted 11 April, 2021; v1 submitted 24 October, 2020; originally announced October 2020.

Comments: 14 pages; Accepted at NAACL 2021

Fair Hate Speech Detection through Evaluation of Social Group Counterfactuals

Authors: Aida Mostafazadeh Davani, Ali Omrani, Brendan Kennedy, Mohammad Atari, Xiang Ren, Morteza Dehghani

Abstract: Approaches for mitigating bias in supervised models are designed to reduce models' dependence on specific sensitive features of the input data, e.g., mentioned social groups. However, in the case of hate speech detection, it is not always desirable to equalize the effects of social groups because of their essential role in distinguishing outgroup-derogatory hate, such that particular types of hate… ▽ More Approaches for mitigating bias in supervised models are designed to reduce models' dependence on specific sensitive features of the input data, e.g., mentioned social groups. However, in the case of hate speech detection, it is not always desirable to equalize the effects of social groups because of their essential role in distinguishing outgroup-derogatory hate, such that particular types of hateful rhetoric carry the intended meaning only when contextualized around certain social group tokens. Counterfactual token fairness for a mentioned social group evaluates the model's predictions as to whether they are the same for (a) the actual sentence and (b) a counterfactual instance, which is generated by changing the mentioned social group in the sentence. Our approach assures robust model predictions for counterfactuals that imply similar meaning as the actual sentence. To quantify the similarity of a sentence and its counterfactual, we compare their likelihood score calculated by generative language models. By equalizing model behaviors on each sentence and its counterfactuals, we mitigate bias in the proposed model while preserving the overall classification performance. △ Less

Submitted 24 October, 2020; originally announced October 2020.

Contextualizing Hate Speech Classifiers with Post-hoc Explanation

Authors: Brendan Kennedy, Xisen Jin, Aida Mostafazadeh Davani, Morteza Dehghani, Xiang Ren

Abstract: Hate speech classifiers trained on imbalanced datasets struggle to determine if group identifiers like "gay" or "black" are used in offensive or prejudiced ways. Such biases manifest in false positives when these identifiers are present, due to models' inability to learn the contexts which constitute a hateful usage of identifiers. We extract SOC post-hoc explanations from fine-tuned BERT classifi… ▽ More Hate speech classifiers trained on imbalanced datasets struggle to determine if group identifiers like "gay" or "black" are used in offensive or prejudiced ways. Such biases manifest in false positives when these identifiers are present, due to models' inability to learn the contexts which constitute a hateful usage of identifiers. We extract SOC post-hoc explanations from fine-tuned BERT classifiers to efficiently detect bias towards identity terms. Then, we propose a novel regularization technique based on these explanations that encourages models to learn from the context of group identifiers in addition to the identifiers themselves. Our approach improved over baselines in limiting false positives on out-of-domain data while maintaining or improving in-domain performance. Project page: https://inklab.usc.edu/contextualize-hate-speech/. △ Less

Submitted 6 July, 2020; v1 submitted 5 May, 2020; originally announced May 2020.

Comments: To appear in Proceedings of the 2020 Annual Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics; Updated references and discussions

Reporting the Unreported: Event Extraction for Analyzing the Local Representation of Hate Crimes

Authors: Aida Mostafazadeh Davani, Leigh Yeh, Mohammad Atari, Brendan Kennedy, Gwenyth Portillo-Wightman, Elaine Gonzalez, Natalie Delong, Rhea Bhatia, Arineh Mirinjian, Xiang Ren, Morteza Dehghani

Abstract: Official reports of hate crimes in the US are under-reported relative to the actual number of such incidents. Further, despite statistical approximations, there are no official reports from a large number of US cities regarding incidents of hate. Here, we first demonstrate that event extraction and multi-instance learning, applied to a corpus of local news articles, can be used to predict instance… ▽ More Official reports of hate crimes in the US are under-reported relative to the actual number of such incidents. Further, despite statistical approximations, there are no official reports from a large number of US cities regarding incidents of hate. Here, we first demonstrate that event extraction and multi-instance learning, applied to a corpus of local news articles, can be used to predict instances of hate crime. We then use the trained model to detect incidents of hate in cities for which the FBI lacks statistics. Lastly, we train models on predicting homicide and kidnapping, compare the predictions to FBI reports, and establish that incidents of hate are indeed under-reported, compared to other types of crimes, in local press. △ Less

Submitted 4 September, 2019; originally announced September 2019.