Nathaniel Swinger

Limor Gultchin, Genevieve Patterson, Nancy Baym et al.

While humor is often thought to be beyond the reach of Natural Language Processing, we show that several aspects of single-word humor correlate with simple linear directions in Word Embeddings. In particular: (a) the word vectors capture multiple aspects discussed in humor theories from various disciplines; (b) each individual's sense of humor can be represented by a vector, which can predict differences in people's senses of humor on new, unrated, words; and (c) upon clustering humor ratings of multiple demographic groups, different humor preferences emerge across the different groups. Humor ratings are taken from the work of Engelthaler and Hills (2017) as well as from an original crowdsourcing study of 120,000 words. Our dataset further includes annotations for the theoretically-motivated humor features we identify.

Nathaniel Swinger, Maria De-Arteaga, Neil Thomas Heffernan et al.

This paper presents an algorithm for enumerating biases in word embeddings. The algorithm exposes a large number of offensive associations related to sensitive features such as race and gender on publicly available embeddings, including a supposedly "debiased" embedding. These biases are concerning in light of the widespread use of word embeddings. The associations are identified by geometric patterns in word embeddings that run parallel between people's names and common lower-case tokens. The algorithm is highly unsupervised: it does not even require the sensitive features to be pre-specified. This is desirable because: (a) many forms of discrimination--such as racial discrimination--are linked to social constructs that may vary depending on the context, rather than to categories with fixed definitions; and (b) it makes it easier to identify biases against intersectional groups, which depend on combinations of sensitive features. The inputs to our algorithm are a list of target tokens, e.g. names, and a word embedding. It outputs a number of Word Embedding Association Tests (WEATs) that capture various biases present in the data. We illustrate the utility of our approach on publicly available word embeddings and lists of names, and evaluate its output using crowdsourcing. We also show how removing names may not remove potential proxy bias.