Pith. sign in

REVIEW 11 cited by

CrowS-Pairs: A Challenge Dataset for Measuring Social Biases in Masked Language Models

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 2010.00133 v1 pith:45L3V6JU submitted 2020-09-30 cs.CL cs.AI

CrowS-Pairs: A Challenge Dataset for Measuring Social Biases in Masked Language Models

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

Pretrained language models, especially masked language models (MLMs) have seen success across many NLP tasks. However, there is ample evidence that they use the cultural biases that are undoubtedly present in the corpora they are trained on, implicitly creating harm with biased representations. To measure some forms of social bias in language models against protected demographic groups in the US, we introduce the Crowdsourced Stereotype Pairs benchmark (CrowS-Pairs). CrowS-Pairs has 1508 examples that cover stereotypes dealing with nine types of bias, like race, religion, and age. In CrowS-Pairs a model is presented with two sentences: one that is more stereotyping and another that is less stereotyping. The data focuses on stereotypes about historically disadvantaged groups and contrasts them with advantaged groups. We find that all three of the widely-used MLMs we evaluate substantially favor sentences that express stereotypes in every category in CrowS-Pairs. As work on building less biased models advances, this dataset can be used as a benchmark to evaluate progress.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 11 Pith papers

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

  1. Social Bias in LLM-Generated Code: Benchmark and Mitigation

    cs.SE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    LLMs show up to 60.58% social bias in generated code; a new Fairness Monitor Agent cuts bias by 65.1% and raises functional correctness from 75.80% to 83.97%.

  2. Self-Rewarding Language Models

    cs.CL 2024-01 conditional novelty 7.0

    Iterative self-rewarding via LLM-as-Judge in DPO training on Llama 2 70B improves instruction following and self-evaluation, outperforming GPT-4 on AlpacaEval 2.0.

  3. OPT: Open Pre-trained Transformer Language Models

    cs.CL 2022-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    OPT releases open decoder-only transformers up to 175B parameters that match GPT-3 performance at one-seventh the carbon cost, along with code and training logs.

  4. BBQ: A Hand-Built Bias Benchmark for Question Answering

    cs.CL 2021-10 accept novelty 7.0

    BBQ is a new benchmark dataset showing that QA models often default to social stereotypes, achieving up to 3.4 points higher accuracy when the correct answer aligns with bias.

  5. AgentFairBench: Do LLM Agents Discriminate When They Act?

    cs.AI 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    AgentFairBench is a multi-domain benchmark for demographic disparity in LLM agent actions, with a pilot showing no significant effect for Claude Haiku 4.5 after arity-matched noise correction.

  6. On The Effectiveness-Fluency Trade-Off In LLM Conditioning: A Systematic Study

    cs.CL 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Systematic experiments reveal that activation steering trades fluency for concept control, is less effective on instruction-tuned models, and that prompting/SFT excel at injection but not removal, with textual metrics...

  7. SafetyRepro: Configuration-Conditional Rank Instability on Alignment Benchmarks

    cs.LG 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Configuration choices alone flip pairwise safety verdicts on every tested alignment benchmark, isolated via a finite-envelope proposition linking disagreement rate to strict ordering reversal.

  8. Navigating the Sea of LLM Evaluation: Investigating Bias in Toxicity Benchmarks

    cs.AI 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Toxicity benchmarks for LLMs produce inconsistent results when task type, input domain, or model changes, revealing intrinsic evaluation biases.

  9. Ethical and social risks of harm from Language Models

    cs.CL 2021-12 accept novelty 6.0

    The authors provide a detailed taxonomy of 21 risks associated with language models, covering discrimination, information leaks, misinformation, malicious applications, interaction harms, and societal impacts like job...

  10. KARMA: Karma-Aligned Reward Model Adaptation

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    KARMA adapts reward models from Reddit karma data to align LLMs with conversational pragmatics, finding that context-only rewards outperform karma-predictive ones downstream while reducing factuality across conditions.

  11. StarCoder: may the source be with you!

    cs.CL 2023-05 accept novelty 5.0

    StarCoderBase matches or beats OpenAI's code-cushman-001 on multi-language code benchmarks; the Python-fine-tuned StarCoder reaches 40% pass@1 on HumanEval while retaining other-language performance.