About

Word Embedding Fairness Evaluation (WEFE) is an open source library for measuring an mitigating bias in word embedding models. It generalizes many existing fairness metrics into a unified framework and provides a standard interface for:

• Encapsulating existing fairness metrics from previous work and designing new ones.

• Encapsulating the test words used by fairness metrics into standard objects called queries.

• Computing a fairness metric on a given pre-trained word embedding model using user-given queries.

WEFE also standardizes the process of mitigating bias through an interface similar to the scikit-learn fit-transform. This standardization separates the mitigation process into two stages:

• The logic of calculating the transformation to be performed on the model (fit).

• The execution of the mitigation transformation on the model (transform).

Motivation and objectives

Word Embeddings models are a core component in almost all NLP downstream systems. Several studies have shown that they are prone to inherit stereotypical social biases from the corpus they were built on. The common method for quantifying bias is to use a metric that calculates the relationship between sets of word embeddings representing different social groups and attributes.

Although previous studies have begun to measure bias in embeddings, they are limited both in the types of bias measured (gender, ethnic) and in the models tested. Moreover, each study proposes its own metric, which makes the relationship between the results obtained unclear.

This fact led us to consider that we could use these metrics and studies to make a case study in which we compare and rank the embedding models according to their bias.

We originally proposed WEFE as a theoretical framework that formalizes the main building blocks for measuring bias in word embedding models. The purpose of developing this framework was to run a case study that consistently compares and ranks different embedding models. Seeing the possibility that other research teams are facing the same problem, we decided to improve this code and publish it as a library, hoping that it can be useful for their studies.

We later realized that the library had the potential to cover more areas than just bias measurement. This is why WEFE is constantly being improved, which so far has resulted in a new bias mitigation module and multiple enhancements and fixes.

The main objectives we want to achieve with this library are:

• To provide a ready-to-use tool that allows the user to run bias tests in a straightforward manner.

• To provide a ready-to-use tool that allows the user to mitigate bias by means of a simple fit-transform interface.

• To provide simple interface and utils to develop new metrics and mitigation methods.

Similar Packages

There are quite a few alternatives that complement WEFE. Be sure to check them out!

• Fair Embedding Engine: https://github.com/FEE-Fair-Embedding-Engine/FEE

• ResponsiblyAI: https://github.com/ResponsiblyAI/responsibly

Measurement Framework

Here we present the main building blocks of the measuring framework and then, we present the common usage pattern of WEFE.

Target set

A target word set (denoted by \(T\)) corresponds to a set of words intended to denote a particular social group,which is defined by a certain criterion. This criterion can be any character, trait or origin that distinguishes groups of people from each other e.g., gender, social class, age, and ethnicity. For example, if the criterion is gender we can use it to distinguish two groups, women and men. Then, a set of target words representing the social group “women” could contain words like ‘she’, ‘woman’, ‘girl’, etc. Analogously a set of target words the representing the social group ‘men’ could include ‘he’, ‘man’, ‘boy’, etc.

Attribute set

An attribute word set (denoted by \(A\)) is a set of words representing some attitude, characteristic, trait, occupational field, etc. that can be associated with individuals from any social group. For example, the set of science attribute words could contain words such as ‘technology’, ‘physics’, ‘chemistry’, while the art attribute words could have words like ‘poetry’, ‘dance’, ‘literature’.

Query

Queries are the main building blocks used by fairness metrics to measure bias of word embedding models. Formally, a query is a pair \(Q=(\mathcal{T},\mathcal{A})\) in which \(T\) is a set of target word sets, and \(A\) is a set of attribute word sets. For example, consider the target word sets:

\[\begin{split}\begin{eqnarray*} T_{\text{women}} & = & \{{she},{woman},{girl}, \ldots\}, \\ T_{\text{men}} & = & \{{he},{man},{boy}, \ldots\}, \end{eqnarray*}\end{split}\]

and the attribute word sets

\[\begin{split}\begin{eqnarray*} A_{\text{science}} & = & \{{math},{physics},{chemistry}, \ldots\}, \\ A_{\text{art}} & = & \{{poetry},{dance},{literature}, \ldots\}. \end{eqnarray*}\end{split}\]

Then the following is a query in our framework

\[\begin{equation} Q=(\{T_{\text{women}}, T_{\text{men}}\},\{A_{\text{science}},A_{\text{art}}\}). \end{equation}\]

When a set of queries \(\mathcal{Q} = {Q_1, Q_2, \dots, Q_n}\) is intended to measure a single type of bias, we say that the set has a Bias Criterion. Examples of bias criteria are gender, ethnicity, religion, politics, social class, among others.

Warning

To accurately study the biases contained in word embeddings, queries may contain words that could be offensive to certain groups or individuals. The relationships studied between these words DO NOT represent the ideas, thoughts or beliefs of the authors of this library. This warning applies to all documentation.

Query Template

A query template is simply a pair \((t,a)\in\mathbb{N}\times\mathbb{N}\). We say that query \(Q=(\mathcal{T},\mathcal{A})\) satisfies a template \((t,a)\) if \(|\mathcal{T}|=t\) and \(|\mathcal{A}|=a\).

Fairness Measure

A fairness metric is a function that quantifies the degree of association between target and attribute words in a word embedding model. In our framework, every fairness metric is defined as a function that has a query and a model as input, and produces a real number as output.

Several fairness metrics have been proposed in the literature. But not all of them share a common input template for queries. Thus, we assume that every fairness metric comes with a template that essentially defines the shape of the input queries supported by the metric.

Formally, let \(F\) be a fairness metric with template \(s_F=(t_F,a_F)\). Given an embedding model \(\mathbf{M}\) and a query \(Q\) that satisfies \(s_F\), the metric produces the value \(F(\mathbf{M},Q)\in \mathbb{R}\) that quantifies the degree of bias of \(\mathbf{M}\) with respect to query \(Q\).

Standard usage pattern of WEFE

The following flow chart shows how to perform a bias measurement using a gender query, word2vec embeddings and the WEAT metric.

To see the implementation of this query using WEFE, refer to the Quick start section.

Metrics

The metrics implemented in the package so far are:

WEAT

Word Embedding Association Test (WEAT), presented in the paper “Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biases”. This metric receives two sets \(T_1\) and \(T_2\) of target words, and two sets \(A_1\) and \(A_2\) of attribute words. Its objective is to quantify the strength of association of both pairs of sets through a permutation test. It also contains a variant, WEAT Effect Size. This variant represents a normalized measure that quantifies how far apart the two distributions of association between targets and attributes are.

RND

Relative Norm Distance (RND), presented in the paper “Word embeddings quantify 100 years of gender and ethnic stereotypes”. RND averages the embeddings of each target set, then for each of the attribute words, calculates the norm of the difference between the word and the average target, and then subtracts the norms. The more positive (negative) the relative distance from the norm, the more associated are the sets of attributes towards group two (one).

RNSB

Relative Negative Sentiment Bias (RNSB), presented in the paper “A transparent framework for evaluating unintended demographic bias in word embeddings”.

RNSB receives as input queries with two attribute sets \(A_1\) and \(A_2\) and two or more target sets, and thus has a template of the form \(s=(N,2)\) with \(N\geq 2\). Given a query \(Q=(\{T_1,T_2,\ldots,T_n\},\{A_1,A_2\})\) and an embedding model \(\mathbf{M}\), in order to compute the metric \(F_{\text{RNSB}}(\mathbf{M},Q)\) one first constructs a binary classifier \(C_{(A_1,A_2)}(\cdot)\) using set \(A_1\) as training examples for the negative class, and \(A_2\) as training examples for the positive class. After the training process, this classifier gives for every word \(w\) a probability \(C_{(A_1,A_2)}(w)\) that can be interpreted as the degree of association of \(w\) with respect to \(A_2\) (value \(1-C_{(A_1,A_2)}(w)\) is the degree of association with \(A_1\)). Now, we construct a probability distribution \(P(\cdot)\) over all the words \(w\) in \(T_1\cup \cdots \cup T_n\), by computing \(C_{(A_1,A_2)}(w)\) and normalizing it to ensure that \(\sum_w P(w)=1\). The main idea behind RNSB is that the more that \(P(\cdot)\) resembles a uniform distribution, the less biased the word embedding model is.

MAC

Mean Average Cosine Similarity (MAC), presented in the paper “Black is to Criminal as Caucasian is to Police: Detecting and Removing Multiclass Bias in Word Embeddings”.

ECT

The Embedding Coherence Test, presented in “Attenuating Bias in Word vectors” calculates the average target group vectors, measures the cosine similarity of each to a list of attribute words and calculates the correlation of the resulting similarity lists.

RIPA

The Relational Inner Product Association, presented in the paper “Understanding Undesirable Word Embedding Associations”, calculates bias by measuring the bias of a term by using the relation vector (i.e the first principal component of a pair of words that define the association) and calculating the dot product of this vector with the attribute word vector. RIPA’s advantages are its interpretability, and its relative robustness compared to WEAT with regard to how the relation vector is defined.

Relevant Papers

The intention of this section is to provide a list of the works on which WEFE relies as well as a rough reference of works on measuring and mitigating bias in word embeddings.

Measurements and Case Studies

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

• Garg, N., Schiebinger, L., Jurafsky, D., & Zou, J. (2018). Word embeddings quantify 100 years of gender and ethnic stereotypes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(16), E3635-E3644..

• Sweeney, C., & Najafian, M. (2019, July). A Transparent Framework for Evaluating Unintended Demographic Bias in Word Embeddings. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 1662-1667)..

• Dev, S., & Phillips, J. (2019, April). Attenuating Bias in Word vectors. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics (pp. 879-887)..

• Ethayarajh, K., & Duvenaud, D., & Hirst, G. (2019, July). Understanding Undesirable Word Embedding Associations. Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 1696-1705)..

Bias Mitigation

• Bolukbasi, T., Chang, K. W., Zou, J., Saligrama, V., & Kalai, A. (2016). Quantifying and reducing stereotypes in word embeddings. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.06121.

• Bolukbasi, T., Chang, K. W., Zou, J. Y., Saligrama, V., & Kalai, A. T. (2016). Man is to computer programmer as woman is to homemaker? debiasing word embeddings. In Advances in neural information processing systems (pp. 4349-4357).

• Zhao, J., Zhou, Y., Li, Z., Wang, W., & Chang, K. W. (2018). Learning gender-neutral word embeddings. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.01496.

• Zhao, J., Wang, T., Yatskar, M., Ordonez, V., & Chang, K. W. (2017). Men also like shopping: Reducing gender bias amplification using corpus-level constraints. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.09457.

• Black is to Criminal as Caucasian is to Police: Detecting and Removing Multiclass Bias in Word Embeddings.

• Gonen, H., & Goldberg, Y. (2019). Lipstick on a pig: Debiasing methods cover up systematic gender biases in word embeddings but do not remove them. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.03862.

Surveys and other resources

A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learning

• Mehrabi, N., Morstatter, F., Saxena, N., Lerman, K., & Galstyan, A. (2019). A survey on bias and fairness in machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1908.09635.

• Bakarov, A. (2018). A survey of word embeddings evaluation methods. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.09536.

• Camacho-Collados, J., & Pilehvar, M. T. (2018). From word to sense embeddings: A survey on vector representations of meaning. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 63, 743-788.

Bias in Contextualized Word Embeddings

• Zhao, J., Wang, T., Yatskar, M., Cotterell, R., Ordonez, V., & Chang, K. W. (2019). Gender bias in contextualized word embeddings. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.03310.

• Basta, C., Costa-jussà, M. R., & Casas, N. (2019). Evaluating the underlying gender bias in contextualized word embeddings. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.08783.

• Kurita, K., Vyas, N., Pareek, A., Black, A. W., & Tsvetkov, Y. (2019). Measuring bias in contextualized word representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.07337.

• Tan, Y. C., & Celis, L. E. (2019). Assessing social and intersectional biases in contextualized word representations. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (pp. 13209-13220).

• Stereoset: A Measure of Bias in Language Models

Citation

Please cite the following paper if using this package in an academic publication:

P. Badilla, F. Bravo-Marquez, and J. Pérez WEFE: The Word Embeddings Fairness Evaluation Framework In Proceedings of the 29th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence and the 17th Pacific Rim International Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-PRICAI 2020), Yokohama, Japan.

The author’s version can be found at the following link.

Bibtex:

@InProceedings{wefe2020,
    title     = {WEFE: The Word Embeddings Fairness Evaluation Framework},
    author    = {Badilla, Pablo and Bravo-Marquez, Felipe and Pérez, Jorge},
    booktitle = {Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Joint Conference on
               Artificial Intelligence, {IJCAI-20}},
    publisher = {International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization},
    pages     = {430--436},
    year      = {2020},
    month     = {7},
    doi       = {10.24963/ijcai.2020/60},
    url       = {https://doi.org/10.24963/ijcai.2020/60},
    }

Roadmap

We expect in the future to:

• Implement the metrics that have come out in recent works on bias in embeddings.

• Implement new queries on different criteria.

• Create a single script that evaluates different embedding models under different bias criteria.

• From the previous script, rank as many embeddings available on the web as possible.

• Implement a visualization module.

• Implement p-values with statistic resampling to all metrics.

License

WEFE is licensed under the BSD 3-Clause License.

Details of the license on this link.

Team

• Pablo Badilla.

• Felipe Bravo-Marquez.

• Jorge Pérez.

Contributors

We thank all our contributors who have allowed WEFE to grow, especially stolenpyjak and mspl13 for implementing new metrics.

Thank you very much 😊!

Contact

Please write to pablo.badilla at ug.chile.cl for inquiries about the software. You are also welcome to do a pull request or publish an issue in the WEFE repository on Github.

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by the Millennium Institute for Foundational Research on Data (IMFD).