---
license: cc-by-sa-4.0
task_categories:
- text-classification
language:
- en
pretty_name: Media Bias Identification Benchmark
configs:
  - cognitive-bias
  - fake-news
  - gender-bias
  - hate-speech
  - linguistic-bias
  - political-bias
  - racial-bias
  - text-level-bias
---

# Dataset Card for Media-Bias-Identification-Benchmark

## Table of Contents
- [Dataset Card for Meida-Bias-Identification-Benchmark](#dataset-card-for-mbib)
  - [Table of Contents](#table-of-contents)
  - [Dataset Description](#dataset-description)
    - [Dataset Summary](#dataset-summary)
    - [Tasks and Information](#tasks-and-information)
    - [Languages](#languages)
  - [Dataset Structure](#dataset-structure)
    - [Data Instances](#data-instances)
      - [cognitive-bias](#cognitive-bias)
    - [Data Fields](#data-fields)
  - [Considerations for Using the Data](#considerations-for-using-the-data)
    - [Social Impact of Dataset](#social-impact-of-dataset)
    - [Discussion of Biases](#discussion-of-biases)
    - [Other Known Limitations](#other-known-limitations)
    - [Citation Information](#citation-information)
    - [Contributions](#contributions)

## Dataset Description

- **Homepage:** https://github.com/Media-Bias-Group/Media-Bias-Identification-Benchmark
- **Repository:** https://github.com/Media-Bias-Group/Media-Bias-Identification-Benchmark
- **Paper:** TODO
- **Point of Contact:** [Martin Wessel](mailto:martin.wessel@uni-konstanz.de)

### Dataset Summary

TODO

### Tasks and Information


<table>
<tr><td>Dataset</td><td>Source</td><td>Sub-domain</td><td>Task Type</td><td>Classes</td><tr>
<tr><td>ECtHR (Task A)</td><td> <a href="https://aclanthology.org/P19-1424/">Chalkidis et al. (2019)</a> </td><td>ECHR</td><td>Multi-label classification</td><td>10+1</td></tr>
<tr><td>ECtHR (Task B)</td><td> <a href="https://aclanthology.org/2021.naacl-main.22/">Chalkidis et al. (2021a)</a> </td><td>ECHR</td><td>Multi-label classification </td><td>10+1</td></tr>
<tr><td>SCOTUS</td><td> <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu">Spaeth et al. (2020)</a></td><td>US Law</td><td>Multi-class classification</td><td>14</td></tr>
<tr><td>EUR-LEX</td><td> <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.00904">Chalkidis et al. (2021b)</a></td><td>EU Law</td><td>Multi-label classification</td><td>100</td></tr>
<tr><td>LEDGAR</td><td> <a href="https://aclanthology.org/2020.lrec-1.155/">Tuggener et al. (2020)</a></td><td>Contracts</td><td>Multi-class classification</td><td>100</td></tr>
<tr><td>UNFAIR-ToS</td><td><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.01217"> Lippi et al. (2019)</a></td><td>Contracts</td><td>Multi-label classification</td><td>8+1</td></tr>
<tr><td>CaseHOLD</td><td><a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.08671">Zheng et al. (2021)</a></td><td>US Law</td><td>Multiple choice QA</td><td>n/a</td></tr>
</table>



Baseline

<table>
        <tr><td><b>Dataset</b></td><td><b>ECtHR A</b></td><td><b>ECtHR B</b></td><td><b>SCOTUS</b></td><td><b>EUR-LEX</b></td><td><b>LEDGAR</b></td><td><b>UNFAIR-ToS</b></td><td><b>CaseHOLD</b></td></tr>
<tr><td><b>Model</b></td><td>μ-F1  / m-F1 </td><td>μ-F1  / m-F1 </td><td>μ-F1  / m-F1 </td><td>μ-F1  / m-F1 </td><td>μ-F1  / m-F1 </td><td>μ-F1  / m-F1</td><td>μ-F1 / m-F1  </td></tr>
<tr><td>TFIDF+SVM</td><td> 64.7 / 51.7  </td><td>74.6 / 65.1 </td><td> <b>78.2</b> / <b>69.5</b> </td><td>71.3  / 51.4 </td><td>87.2   / 82.4 </td><td>95.4  / 78.8</td><td>n/a   </td></tr>
<tr><td colspan="8" style='text-align:center'><b>Medium-sized Models (L=12, H=768, A=12)</b></td></tr>
<td>BERT</td> <td> 71.2 /  63.6 </td> <td> 79.7 /  73.4 </td> <td> 68.3 /  58.3 </td> <td> 71.4 /  57.2 </td> <td> 87.6 /  81.8 </td> <td> 95.6 /  81.3 </td> <td> 70.8 </td> </tr>
<td>RoBERTa</td> <td> 69.2 /  59.0 </td> <td> 77.3 /  68.9 </td> <td> 71.6 /  62.0 </td> <td> 71.9 /  <b>57.9</b> </td> <td> 87.9 /  82.3 </td> <td> 95.2 /  79.2 </td> <td> 71.4 </td> </tr>
<td>DeBERTa</td> <td> 70.0 /  60.8 </td> <td> 78.8 /  71.0 </td> <td> 71.1 /  62.7 </td> <td> <b>72.1</b> /  57.4 </td> <td> 88.2 /  83.1 </td> <td> 95.5 /  80.3 </td> <td> 72.6 </td> </tr>
<td>Longformer</td> <td> 69.9 / 64.7 </td> <td> 79.4 /  71.7 </td> <td> 72.9 /  64.0 </td> <td> 71.6 /  57.7 </td> <td> 88.2 /  83.0 </td> <td> 95.5 /  80.9 </td> <td> 71.9 </td> </tr>
<td>BigBird</td> <td> 70.0 /  62.9 </td> <td> 78.8 /  70.9 </td> <td> 72.8 /  62.0 </td> <td> 71.5 /  56.8 </td> <td> 87.8 /  82.6 </td> <td> 95.7 /  81.3 </td> <td> 70.8 </td> </tr>
<td>Legal-BERT</td> <td> 70.0 /  64.0 </td> <td> <b>80.4</b> /  <b>74.7</b> </td> <td> 76.4 /  66.5 </td> <td> <b>72.1</b> /  57.4 </td> <td> 88.2 /  83.0 </td> <td> <b>96.0</b> /  <b>83.0</b> </td> <td> 75.3 </td> </tr>
<td>CaseLaw-BERT</td> <td> 69.8 /  62.9 </td> <td> 78.8 /  70.3 </td> <td> 76.6 /  65.9 </td> <td> 70.7 /  56.6 </td> <td> 88.3 /  83.0 </td> <td> <b>96.0</b> /  82.3 </td> <td> <b>75.4</b> </td> </tr>
<tr><td colspan="8" style='text-align:center'><b>Large-sized Models (L=24, H=1024, A=18)</b></td></tr>
<tr><td>RoBERTa</td> <td> <b>73.8</b> /  <b>67.6</b> </td> <td> 79.8 /  71.6 </td> <td> 75.5 /  66.3 </td> <td> 67.9 /  50.3 </td> <td> <b>88.6</b> /  <b>83.6</b> </td> <td> 95.8 /  81.6 </td> <td> 74.4 </td> </tr>
</table>




### Languages

All datasets are in English

## Dataset Structure

### Data Instances

#### cognitive-bias

An example of one training instance looks as follows. 
```json
{
  "text": "A defense bill includes language that would require military hospitals to provide abortions on demand",
  "label": 1
}
```




### Data Fields

- `text`: a sentence from various sources (eg., news articles, twitter, other social media).
- `label`: binary indicator of bias (0 = unbiased, 1 = biased)




## Considerations for Using the Data

### Social Impact of Dataset
TODO


### Discussion of Biases

TODO


### Other Known Limitations

TODO



### Citation Information

```
TODO
```

### Contributions
TODO