Sullam Jeoung


2022

pdf bib
What changed? Investigating Debiasing Methods using Causal Mediation Analysis
Sullam Jeoung | Jana Diesner
Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Gender Bias in Natural Language Processing (GeBNLP)

Previous work has examined how debiasing language models affect downstream tasks, specifically, how debiasing techniques influence task performance and whether debiased models also make impartial predictions in downstream tasks or not. However, what we don’t understand well yet is why debiasing methods have varying impacts on downstream tasks and how debiasing techniques affect internal components of language models, i.e., neurons, layers, and attentions. In this paper, we decompose the internal mechanisms of debiasing language models with respect to gender by applying causal mediation analysis to understand the influence of debiasing methods on toxicity detection as a downstream task. Our findings suggest a need to test the effectiveness of debiasing methods with different bias metrics, and to focus on changes in the behavior of certain components of the models, e.g.,first two layers of language models, and attention heads.

pdf bib
Raison d’être of the benchmark dataset: A Survey of Current Practices of Benchmark Dataset Sharing Platforms
Jaihyun Park | Sullam Jeoung
Proceedings of NLP Power! The First Workshop on Efficient Benchmarking in NLP

This paper critically examines the current practices of benchmark dataset sharing in NLP and suggests a better way to inform reusers of the benchmark dataset. As the dataset sharing platform plays a key role not only in distributing the dataset but also in informing the potential reusers about the dataset, we believe data-sharing platforms should provide a comprehensive context of the datasets. We survey four benchmark dataset sharing platforms: HuggingFace, PaperswithCode, Tensorflow, and Pytorch to diagnose the current practices of how the dataset is shared which metadata is shared and omitted. To be specific, drawing on the concept of data curation which considers the future reuse when the data is made public, we advance the direction that benchmark dataset sharing platforms should take into consideration. We identify that four benchmark platforms have different practices of using metadata and there is a lack of consensus on what social impact metadata is. We believe the problem of missing a discussion around social impact in the dataset sharing platforms has to do with the failed agreement on who should be in charge. We propose that the benchmark dataset should develop social impact metadata and data curator should take a role in managing the social impact metadata.