Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Social Bias Frames: Reasoning about Social and Power Implications of Language

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 1911.03891 v3 pith:O5XFDOK7 submitted 2019-11-10 cs.CL

Social Bias Frames: Reasoning about Social and Power Implications of Language

classification cs.CL
keywords socialbiasframesimplicationsbiaseslanguageotherspeople
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Warning: this paper contains content that may be offensive or upsetting. Language has the power to reinforce stereotypes and project social biases onto others. At the core of the challenge is that it is rarely what is stated explicitly, but rather the implied meanings, that frame people's judgments about others. For example, given a statement that "we shouldn't lower our standards to hire more women," most listeners will infer the implicature intended by the speaker -- that "women (candidates) are less qualified." Most semantic formalisms, to date, do not capture such pragmatic implications in which people express social biases and power differentials in language. We introduce Social Bias Frames, a new conceptual formalism that aims to model the pragmatic frames in which people project social biases and stereotypes onto others. In addition, we introduce the Social Bias Inference Corpus to support large-scale modelling and evaluation with 150k structured annotations of social media posts, covering over 34k implications about a thousand demographic groups. We then establish baseline approaches that learn to recover Social Bias Frames from unstructured text. We find that while state-of-the-art neural models are effective at high-level categorization of whether a given statement projects unwanted social bias (80% F1), they are not effective at spelling out more detailed explanations in terms of Social Bias Frames. Our study motivates future work that combines structured pragmatic inference with commonsense reasoning on social implications.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. When Does Demographic Information Help? Data and Modeling Regimes for Perspective-Aware Hate Speech Detection

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Demographic information aids perspective-aware hate speech detection in regimes of low training disagreement and high test disagreement, with a gated residual model proving effective on high-disagreement examples acro...

  2. Red Teaming Language Models to Reduce Harms: Methods, Scaling Behaviors, and Lessons Learned

    cs.CL 2022-08 accept novelty 6.0

    RLHF-aligned language models show increasing resistance to red teaming with scale up to 52B parameters, unlike prompted or rejection-sampled models, supported by a released dataset of 38,961 attacks.