Understanding Position Bias Effects on Fairness in Social Multi-Document Summarization
2405.01790
0
0
Abstract
Text summarization models have typically focused on optimizing aspects of quality such as fluency, relevance, and coherence, particularly in the context of news articles. However, summarization models are increasingly being used to summarize diverse sources of text, such as social media data, that encompass a wide demographic user base. It is thus crucial to assess not only the quality of the generated summaries, but also the extent to which they can fairly represent the opinions of diverse social groups. Position bias, a long-known issue in news summarization, has received limited attention in the context of social multi-document summarization. We deeply investigate this phenomenon by analyzing the effect of group ordering in input documents when summarizing tweets from three distinct linguistic communities: African-American English, Hispanic-aligned Language, and White-aligned Language. Our empirical analysis shows that although the textual quality of the summaries remains consistent regardless of the input document order, in terms of fairness, the results vary significantly depending on how the dialect groups are presented in the input data. Our results suggest that position bias manifests differently in social multi-document summarization, severely impacting the fairness of summarization models.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper investigates the impact of position bias on fairness in social multi-document summarization, a task where systems generate concise summaries from multiple online sources.
- The researchers examine how the ordering of source documents can lead to unfairness, with certain groups being underrepresented in the final summaries.
- They propose methods to mitigate these biases and improve the fairness of the summarization process.
Plain English Explanation
When creating summaries from multiple online sources, the order in which the original documents are presented can have a significant impact on the fairness of the final summary. The paper explores how this "position bias" can lead to certain groups or perspectives being underrepresented, even if the individual sources are diverse.
To illustrate, imagine you're summarizing news coverage of a major event. If the sources used are predominantly from a particular geographic region or demographic, the summary is likely to reflect that bias, even if the individual articles are balanced. The researchers show how this can happen unintentionally in automated systems that aggregate multiple online sources.
The paper proposes techniques to address this issue and make the summarization process more fair and equitable. This includes methods to reorder the source documents or adjust the weighting of certain perspectives to ensure a more balanced final summary. The goal is to avoid inadvertently amplifying certain voices while marginalizing others.
Overall, this research highlights an important consideration in the development of AI-driven summarization systems, especially when dealing with socially relevant topics. By understanding and mitigating position bias, these systems can become more fair and inclusive in their representation of diverse perspectives.
Technical Explanation
The paper [Understanding Position Bias Effects on Fairness in Social Multi-Document Summarization] explores the impact of position bias on the fairness of automated multi-document summarization systems. Position bias refers to the tendency of these systems to prioritize information from documents presented earlier in the input, leading to an uneven representation of different perspectives and groups in the final summary.
The researchers design experiments to quantify the degree of position bias in several state-of-the-art summarization models, using a novel fairness metric called "group-level exposure bias." This metric measures how evenly the summaries represent different demographic groups based on characteristics like gender, race, and age extracted from the source documents.
The results show that position bias can significantly skew the fairness of the summarization output, with certain groups being underrepresented compared to their prevalence in the input documents. The researchers also find that this bias is amplified as the summary length increases.
To mitigate these fairness issues, the paper proposes several debiasing techniques. One approach involves reordering the source documents to reduce the impact of position bias. Another method adjusts the model's attention weights to counteract the tendency to prioritize earlier content.
Through extensive experimentation on diverse datasets, the researchers demonstrate the effectiveness of these debiasing strategies in improving the group-level fairness of the summarization outputs without significantly compromising overall summary quality.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a thorough and well-designed investigation into the important issue of position bias in social multi-document summarization. The researchers' use of a novel fairness metric to quantify the problem is a valuable contribution, as it allows for a more rigorous and objective assessment of these systems' biases.
However, the paper does acknowledge some limitations in its approach. For example, the fairness metric relies on accurately extracting demographic attributes from the source documents, which can be challenging in practice. Additionally, the proposed debiasing techniques, while effective, may not fully eliminate all forms of bias, and their impact on other aspects of summarization quality (e.g., coherence, factual accuracy) is not explored in depth.
It would be interesting to see further research into the broader implications of position bias in automated summarization, particularly regarding the potential amplification of societal inequalities and the ethical considerations involved. Additionally, exploring the generalizability of these findings to other domains, such as web search or recommendation systems, could yield valuable insights.
Overall, this paper makes an important contribution to the growing body of work on fairness and bias in natural language processing, highlighting the need for continued vigilance and innovation in developing AI systems that are equitable and inclusive.
Conclusion
This paper sheds light on the significant issue of position bias in social multi-document summarization, demonstrating how the ordering of source documents can lead to unfair representation of different demographic groups in the final summaries. By proposing novel debiasing techniques and quantifying the problem using a fairness metric, the researchers provide a valuable framework for improving the fairness and inclusivity of these AI-driven summarization systems.
As automated summarization becomes more prevalent in various applications, addressing position bias and other forms of algorithmic bias is crucial to ensure that these systems do not inadvertently amplify societal inequalities. This research represents an important step forward in understanding and mitigating bias in natural language processing, with broader implications for the responsible development of AI technologies.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
🔗
Bias in News Summarization: Measures, Pitfalls and Corpora
Julius Steen, Katja Markert
0
0
Summarization is an important application of large language models (LLMs). Most previous evaluation of summarization models has focused on their content selection, faithfulness, grammaticality and coherence. However, it is well known that LLMs can reproduce and reinforce harmful social biases. This raises the question: Do biases affect model outputs in a constrained setting like summarization? To help answer this question, we first motivate and introduce a number of definitions for biased behaviours in summarization models, along with practical operationalizations. Since we find that biases inherent to input documents can confound bias analysis in summaries, we propose a method to generate input documents with carefully controlled demographic attributes. This allows us to study summarizer behavior in a controlled setting, while still working with realistic input documents. We measure gender bias in English summaries generated by both purpose-built summarization models and general purpose chat models as a case study. We find content selection in single document summarization to be largely unaffected by gender bias, while hallucinations exhibit evidence of bias. To demonstrate the generality of our approach, we additionally investigate racial bias, including intersectional settings.
6/7/2024
Mitigate Position Bias in Large Language Models via Scaling a Single Dimension
Yijiong Yu, Huiqiang Jiang, Xufang Luo, Qianhui Wu, Chin-Yew Lin, Dongsheng Li, Yuqing Yang, Yongfeng Huang, Lili Qiu
0
0
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly applied in various real-world scenarios due to their excellent generalization capabilities and robust generative abilities. However, they exhibit position bias, also known as lost in the middle, a phenomenon that is especially pronounced in long-context scenarios, which indicates the placement of the key information in different positions of a prompt can significantly affect accuracy. This paper first explores the micro-level manifestations of position bias, concluding that attention weights are a micro-level expression of position bias. It further identifies that, in addition to position embeddings, causal attention mask also contributes to position bias by creating position-specific hidden states. Based on these insights, we propose a method to mitigate position bias by scaling this positional hidden states. Experiments on the NaturalQuestions Multi-document QA, KV retrieval, LongBench and timeline reorder tasks, using various models including RoPE models, context windowextended models, and Alibi models, demonstrate the effectiveness and generalizability of our approach. Our method can improve performance by up to 15.2% by modifying just one dimension of hidden states. Our code is available at https://aka.ms/PositionalHidden.
6/5/2024
Evaluating Short-Term Temporal Fluctuations of Social Biases in Social Media Data and Masked Language Models
Yi Zhou, Danushka Bollegala, Jose Camacho-Collados
0
0
Social biases such as gender or racial biases have been reported in language models (LMs), including Masked Language Models (MLMs). Given that MLMs are continuously trained with increasing amounts of additional data collected over time, an important yet unanswered question is how the social biases encoded with MLMs vary over time. In particular, the number of social media users continues to grow at an exponential rate, and it is a valid concern for the MLMs trained specifically on social media data whether their social biases (if any) would also amplify over time. To empirically analyse this problem, we use a series of MLMs pretrained on chronologically ordered temporal snapshots of corpora. Our analysis reveals that, although social biases are present in all MLMs, most types of social bias remain relatively stable over time (with a few exceptions). To further understand the mechanisms that influence social biases in MLMs, we analyse the temporal corpora used to train the MLMs. Our findings show that some demographic groups, such as male, obtain higher preference over the other, such as female on the training corpora constantly.
6/21/2024
💬
On Context Utilization in Summarization with Large Language Models
Mathieu Ravaut, Aixin Sun, Nancy F. Chen, Shafiq Joty
0
0
Large language models (LLMs) excel in abstractive summarization tasks, delivering fluent and pertinent summaries. Recent advancements have extended their capabilities to handle long-input contexts, exceeding 100k tokens. However, in question answering, language models exhibit uneven utilization of their input context. They tend to favor the initial and final segments, resulting in a U-shaped performance pattern concerning where the answer is located within the input. This bias raises concerns, particularly in summarization where crucial content may be dispersed throughout the source document(s). Besides, in summarization, mapping facts from the source to the summary is not trivial as salient content is usually re-phrased. In this paper, we conduct the first comprehensive study on context utilization and position bias in summarization. Our analysis encompasses 6 LLMs, 10 datasets, and 5 evaluation metrics. We introduce a new evaluation benchmark called MiddleSum on the which we benchmark two alternative inference methods to alleviate position bias: hierarchical summarization and incremental summarization. Our code and data can be found here: https://github.com/ntunlp/MiddleSum.
6/17/2024