Learning to Generate Equitable Text in Dialogue from Biased Training Data
Anthony Sicilia, Malihe Alikhani
Abstract
The ingrained principles of fairness in a dialogue system's decision-making process and generated responses are crucial for user engagement, satisfaction, and task achievement. Absence of equitable and inclusive principles can hinder the formation of common ground, which in turn negatively impacts the overall performance of the system. For example, misusing pronouns in a user interaction may cause ambiguity about the intended subject. Yet, there is no comprehensive study of equitable text generation in dialogue. Aptly, in this work, we use theories of computational learning to study this problem. We provide formal definitions of equity in text generation, and further, prove formal connections between learning human-likeness and learning equity: algorithms for improving equity ultimately reduce to algorithms for improving human-likeness (on augmented data). With this insight, we also formulate reasonable conditions under which text generation algorithms can learn to generate equitable text without any modifications to the biased training data on which they learn. To exemplify our theory in practice, we look at a group of algorithms for the GuessWhat?! visual dialogue game and, using this example, test our theory empirically. Our theory accurately predicts relative-performance of multiple algorithms in generating equitable text as measured by both human and automated evaluation.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 0da12cce-120f-4829-b2aa-2660dece64f5Cited by top-tier papers2
- Evaluating Theory of (an uncertain) Mind: Predicting the Uncertain Beliefs of Others from Conversational CuesAnthony B. Sicilia, Malihe AlikhaniACL 2025 · 2 citations
- Why Don't Prompt-Based Fairness Metrics Correlate?Abdelrahman Zayed, Gonçalo Mordido, Ioana Baldini, Sarath ChandarACL 2024
Builds on5
- Is There a Trade-Off Between Fairness and Accuracy? A Perspective Using Mismatched Hypothesis TestingSanghamitra Dutta, Dennis Wei, Hazar Yueksel, Pin-Yu Chen et al.ICML 2020 · 171 citations
- Conditional Learning of Fair RepresentationsHan Zhao, Amanda Coston, Tameem Adel, Geoffrey J. GordonICLR 2020 · 127 citations
- Double-Hard Debias: Tailoring Word Embeddings for Gender Bias MitigationTianlu Wang, Xi Victoria Lin, Nazneen Fatema Rajani, Bryan McCann et al.ACL 2020 · 42 citations
- Auto-Debias: Debiasing Masked Language Models with Automated Biased PromptsYue Guo, Yi Yang, Ahmed AbbasiACL 2022
- Stereotyping Norwegian Salmon: An Inventory of Pitfalls in Fairness Benchmark DatasetsSu Lin Blodgett, Gilsinia Lopez, Alexandra Olteanu, Robert Sim et al.ACL 2021
Related papers
- Adhering, Steering, and Queering: Treatment of Gender in Natural Language GenerationYolande A. A. Strengers, Lizhen Qu, Qiongkai Xu, Jarrod KnibbeCHI 2020 · 31 citations
- Queens are Powerful too: Mitigating Gender Bias in Dialogue GenerationEmily Dinan, Angela Fan, Adina Williams, Jack Urbanek et al.EMNLP 2020 · 14 citations
- Two Causal Principles for Improving Visual DialogJiaxin Qi, Yulei Niu, Jianqiang Huang, Hanwang ZhangCVPR 2020
- Equi-Tuning: Group Equivariant Fine-Tuning of Pretrained ModelsSourya Basu, Prasanna Sattigeri, Karthikeyan Natesan Ramamurthy, Vijil Chenthamarakshan et al.AAAI 2023 · 25 citations
- The Consensus Game: Language Model Generation via Equilibrium SearchAthul Paul Jacob, Yikang Shen, Gabriele Farina, Jacob AndreasICLR 2024 · 40 citations
