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

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 with. Winogender schemas (Rudinger et al., 2018) are an influential dataset proposed to evaluate gender bias in coreference resolution, but a closer look at the data reveals issues with the instances that compromise their use for reliable evaluation, including treating different grammatical cases of pronouns in the same way, violations of template constraints, and typographical errors. We identify these issues and fix them, contributing a new dataset: Winogender 2.0. Our changes affect performance with state-of-the-art supervised coreference resolution systems as well as all model sizes of the language model FLAN-T5, with F1 dropping on average 0.1 points. We also propose a new method to evaluate pronominal bias in coreference resolution that goes beyond the binary. With this method and our new dataset which is balanced for grammatical case, we empirically demonstrate that bias characteristics vary not just across pronoun sets, but also across surface forms of those sets.

From Insights to Actions: The Impact of Interpretability and Analysis Research on NLP

Interpretability and analysis (IA) research is a growing subfield within NLP with the goal of developing a deeper understanding of the behavior or inner workings of NLP systems and methods. Despite growing interest in the subfield, a commonly voiced criticism is that it lacks actionable insights and therefore has little impact on NLP. In this paper, we seek to quantify the impact of IA research on the broader field of NLP. We approach this with a mixed-methods analysis of: (1) a citation graph of 185K+ papers built from all papers published at ACL and EMNLP conferences from 2018 to 2023, and (2) a survey of 138 members of the NLP community. Our quantitative results show that IA work is well-cited outside of IA, and central in the NLP citation graph. Through qualitative analysis of survey responses and manual annotation of 556 papers, we find that NLP researchers build on findings from IA work and perceive it is important for progress in NLP, multiple subfields, and rely on its findings and terminology for their own work. Many novel methods are proposed based on IA findings and highly influenced by them, but highly influential non-IA work cites IA findings without being driven by them. We end by summarizing what is missing in IA work today and provide a call to action, to pave the way for a more impactful future of IA research.

Understanding "Democratization" in NLP and ML Research

Recent improvements in natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning (ML) and increased mainstream adoption have led to researchers frequently discussing the "democratization" of artificial intelligence. In this paper, we seek to clarify how democratization is understood in NLP and ML publications, through large-scale mixed-methods analyses of papers using the keyword "democra*" published in NLP and adjacent venues. We find that democratization is most frequently used to convey (ease of) access to or use of technologies, without meaningfully engaging with theories of democratization, while research using other invocations of "democra*" tends to be grounded in theories of deliberation and debate. Based on our findings, we call for researchers to enrich their use of the term democratization with appropriate theory, towards democratic technologies beyond superficial access.

Stop! In the Name of Flaws: Disentangling Personal Names and Sociodemographic Attributes in NLP

Personal names simultaneously differentiate individuals and categorize them in ways that are important in a given society. While the natural language processing community has thus associated personal names with sociodemographic characteristics in a variety of tasks, researchers have engaged to varying degrees with the established methodological problems in doing so. To guide future work, we present an interdisciplinary background on names and naming. We then survey the issues inherent to associating names with sociodemographic attributes, covering problems of validity (e.g., systematic error, construct validity), as well as ethical concerns (e.g., harms, differential impact, cultural insensitivity). Finally, we provide guiding questions along with normative recommendations to avoid validity and ethical pitfalls when dealing with names and sociodemographic characteristics in natural language processing.

Robust Pronoun Use Fidelity with English LLMs: Are they Reasoning, Repeating, or Just Biased?

Robust, faithful and harm-free pronoun use for individuals is an important goal for language models as their use increases, but prior work tends to study only one or two of these components at a time. To measure progress towards the combined goal, we introduce the task of pronoun use fidelity: given a context introducing a co-referring entity and pronoun, the task is to reuse the correct pronoun later, independent of potential distractors. We present a carefully-designed dataset of over 5 million instances to evaluate pronoun use fidelity in English, and we use it to evaluate 37 popular large language models across architectures (encoder-only, decoder-only and encoder-decoder) and scales (11M-70B parameters). We find that while models can mostly faithfully reuse previously-specified pronouns in the presence of no distractors, they are significantly worse at processing she/her/her, singular they and neopronouns. Additionally, models are not robustly faithful to pronouns, as they are easily distracted. With even one additional sentence containing a distractor pronoun, accuracy drops on average by 34%. With 5 distractor sentences, accuracy drops by 52% for decoder-only models and 13% for encoder-only models. We show that widely-used large language models are still brittle, with large gaps in reasoning and in processing different pronouns in a setting that is very simple for humans, and we encourage researchers in bias and reasoning to bridge them.

What explains the success of cross-modal fine-tuning with ORCA?

ORCA (Shen et al., 2023) is a recent technique for cross-modal fine-tuning, i.e., applying pre-trained transformer models to modalities beyond their training data. The technique consists primarily of training an embedder and fine-tuning the embedder and model. Despite its high performance on a variety of downstream tasks, we do not understand precisely how each of these components contribute to ORCA's success. Therefore, we run a series of ablations and find that embedder training does not help 2D tasks at all, contrary to what the original paper posits. In 1D tasks, some amount of embedder training is necessary but more is not better. In 4 out of 6 datasets we experiment with, it is model fine-tuning that makes the biggest difference. Through our ablations and baselines, we contribute a better understanding of the individual components of ORCA.

The Impact of Demonstrations on Multilingual In-Context Learning: A Multidimensional Analysis

In-context learning is a popular inference strategy where large language models solve a task using only a few labelled demonstrations without needing any parameter updates. Compared to work on monolingual (English) in-context learning, multilingual in-context learning is under-explored, and we lack an in-depth understanding of the role of demonstrations in this context. To address this gap, we conduct a multidimensional analysis of multilingual in-context learning, experimenting with 5 models from different model families, 9 datasets covering classification and generation tasks, and 56 typologically diverse languages. Our results reveal that the effectiveness of demonstrations varies significantly across models, tasks, and languages. We also find that Llama 2-Chat, GPT-3.5, and GPT-4 are largely insensitive to the quality of demonstrations. Instead, a carefully crafted template often eliminates the benefits of demonstrations for some tasks and languages altogether. These findings show that the importance of demonstrations might be overestimated. Our work highlights the need for granular evaluation across multiple axes towards a better understanding of in-context learning.

A Lightweight Method to Generate Unanswerable Questions in English

If a question cannot be answered with the available information, robust systems for question answering (QA) should know _not_ to answer. One way to build QA models that do this is with additional training data comprised of unanswerable questions, created either by employing annotators or through automated methods for unanswerable question generation. To show that the model complexity of existing automated approaches is not justified, we examine a simpler data augmentation method for unanswerable question generation in English: performing antonym and entity swaps on answerable questions. Compared to the prior state-of-the-art, data generated with our training-free and lightweight strategy results in better models (+1.6 F1 points on SQuAD 2.0 data with BERT-large), and has higher human-judged relatedness and readability. We quantify the raw benefits of our approach compared to no augmentation across multiple encoder models, using different amounts of generated data, and also on TydiQA-MinSpan data (+9.3 F1 points with BERT-large). Our results establish swaps as a simple but strong baseline for future work.

Factoring the Matrix of Domination: A Critical Review and Reimagination of Intersectionality in AI Fairness

Intersectionality is a critical framework that, through inquiry and praxis, allows us to examine how social inequalities persist through domains of structure and discipline. Given AI fairness' raison d'\^etre of ``fairness,'' we argue that adopting intersectionality as an analytical framework is pivotal to effectively operationalizing fairness. Through a critical review of how intersectionality is discussed in 30 papers from the AI fairness literature, we deductively and inductively: 1) map how intersectionality tenets operate within the AI fairness paradigm and 2) uncover gaps between the conceptualization and operationalization of intersectionality. We find that researchers overwhelmingly reduce intersectionality to optimizing for fairness metrics over demographic subgroups. They also fail to discuss their social context and when mentioning power, they mostly situate it only within the AI pipeline. We: 3) outline and assess the implications of these gaps for critical inquiry and praxis, and 4) provide actionable recommendations for AI fairness researchers to engage with intersectionality in their work by grounding it in AI epistemology.