Papers › Unmasking the Mask -- Evaluating Social Biases in Masked Language Models

Unmasking the Mask -- Evaluating Social Biases in Masked Language Models

15 Apr 2021arXiv:2104.07496archive 2025-07-28

Masahiro Kaneko, Danushka Bollegala

Masked Language Models (MLMs) have shown superior performances in numerous downstream NLP tasks when used as text encoders. Unfortunately, MLMs also demonstrate significantly worrying levels of social biases. We show that the previously proposed evaluation metrics for quantifying the social biases in MLMs are problematic due to following reasons: (1) prediction accuracy of the masked tokens itself tend to be low in some MLMs, which raises questions regarding the reliability of the evaluation metrics that use the (pseudo) likelihood of the predicted tokens, and (2) the correlation between the prediction accuracy of the mask and the performance in downstream NLP tasks is not taken into consideration, and (3) high frequency words in the training data are masked more often, introducing noise due to this selection bias in the test cases. To overcome the above-mentioned disfluencies, we propose All Unmasked Likelihood (AUL), a bias evaluation measure that predicts all tokens in a test case given the MLM embedding of the unmasked input. We find that AUL accurately detects different types of biases in MLMs. We also propose AUL with attention weights (AULA) to evaluate tokens based on their importance in a sentence. However, unlike AUL and AULA, previously proposed bias evaluation measures for MLMs systematically overestimate the measured biases, and are heavily influenced by the unmasked tokens in the context.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

8 samples harvested; 1 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 7 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 0 of the 8 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from 2 repositories linked to this paper, official or community; each sample names its own and says which. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections