Bias in News Summarization: Measures, Pitfalls and Corpora
2309.08047
0
0
🔗
Abstract
Summarization is an important application of large language models (LLMs). Most previous evaluation of summarization models has focused on their content selection, faithfulness, grammaticality and coherence. However, it is well known that LLMs can reproduce and reinforce harmful social biases. This raises the question: Do biases affect model outputs in a constrained setting like summarization? To help answer this question, we first motivate and introduce a number of definitions for biased behaviours in summarization models, along with practical operationalizations. Since we find that biases inherent to input documents can confound bias analysis in summaries, we propose a method to generate input documents with carefully controlled demographic attributes. This allows us to study summarizer behavior in a controlled setting, while still working with realistic input documents. We measure gender bias in English summaries generated by both purpose-built summarization models and general purpose chat models as a case study. We find content selection in single document summarization to be largely unaffected by gender bias, while hallucinations exhibit evidence of bias. To demonstrate the generality of our approach, we additionally investigate racial bias, including intersectional settings.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper investigates whether language models used for text summarization exhibit biases, such as gender or racial bias, in their generated outputs.
- The authors propose methods to evaluate bias in summarization models, including generating input documents with controlled demographic attributes to isolate the effects of bias.
- They conduct a case study on gender bias in English summaries generated by both specialized summarization models and general-purpose language models.
Plain English Explanation
The paper explores whether large language models (LLMs) used for text summarization exhibit biases, such as gender or racial bias, in the summaries they generate. Bias in AI models is a significant concern, as these models can reproduce and reinforce harmful social biases.
To study this, the authors first define different types of biased behaviors that could occur in summarization models, such as biases in content selection or "hallucinations" (generating content not supported by the input). They then propose a method to generate input documents with carefully controlled demographic attributes, allowing them to isolate the effects of bias and study summarizer behavior in a controlled setting.
As a case study, the researchers measure gender bias in English summaries generated by both specialized summarization models and general-purpose language models. They find that content selection in single-document summarization is largely unaffected by gender bias, but hallucinations do exhibit evidence of bias. To demonstrate the broader applicability of their approach, they also investigate racial bias, including intersectional settings (e.g., gender and race).
Technical Explanation
The paper begins by highlighting the importance of text summarization as a crucial application of large language models (LLMs). While previous research has focused on evaluating summarization models based on content selection, faithfulness, grammaticality, and coherence, the authors note that LLMs can also reproduce and reinforce harmful social biases.
To address this, the researchers first define and operationalize several types of biased behaviors that could occur in summarization models, including:
- Biases in content selection: Favoring or disfavoring certain demographic groups in the information included in the summary.
- Biases in hallucinations: Generating content not supported by the input that reflects biases.
- Biases in factual consistency: Introducing demographic-specific factual errors or inconsistencies.
Since biases inherent to the input documents can confound the analysis of bias in summaries, the authors propose a method to generate input documents with carefully controlled demographic attributes. This allows them to study summarizer behavior in a controlled setting while still using realistic input documents.
The researchers conduct a case study on gender bias in English summaries generated by both purpose-built summarization models and general-purpose chat models. They find that content selection in single-document summarization is largely unaffected by gender bias, but hallucinations do exhibit evidence of bias.
To demonstrate the generality of their approach, the authors also investigate racial bias, including intersectional settings (e.g., gender and race). Their findings suggest that this framework can be applied to study a variety of demographic biases in summarization models.
Critical Analysis
The paper presents a novel and important approach to studying bias in text summarization models, addressing a significant gap in the existing research. By generating input documents with controlled demographic attributes, the authors are able to isolate the effects of bias and gain valuable insights into the behavior of summarization models.
However, the paper does not address the potential limitations of this approach, such as the impact of the specific methods used to generate the controlled input documents or the generalizability of the findings to more complex real-world scenarios. Additionally, the paper could have delved deeper into the potential causes of the observed biases, such as the role of the training data or model architectures.
Furthermore, the paper does not discuss the potential implications of these biases in real-world applications of summarization models, such as their impact on decision-making or user experience. Addressing these issues could strengthen the overall contribution of the research and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the problem.
Conclusion
This paper makes a significant contribution to the understanding of bias in text summarization models. By proposing a method to generate input documents with controlled demographic attributes, the authors are able to isolate the effects of bias and study summarizer behavior in a controlled setting. Their case study on gender bias, as well as their investigation of racial bias, provides valuable insights into the nature and prevalence of these biases in summarization models.
The findings of this research have important implications for the development and deployment of summarization systems, highlighting the need for rigorous bias evaluation and mitigation strategies. As large language models continue to be applied in high-stakes domains, addressing issues of bias and fairness will be crucial to ensuring the responsible and equitable use of these powerful technologies.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
Understanding Position Bias Effects on Fairness in Social Multi-Document Summarization
Olubusayo Olabisi, Ameeta Agrawal
0
0
Text summarization models have typically focused on optimizing aspects of quality such as fluency, relevance, and coherence, particularly in the context of news articles. However, summarization models are increasingly being used to summarize diverse sources of text, such as social media data, that encompass a wide demographic user base. It is thus crucial to assess not only the quality of the generated summaries, but also the extent to which they can fairly represent the opinions of diverse social groups. Position bias, a long-known issue in news summarization, has received limited attention in the context of social multi-document summarization. We deeply investigate this phenomenon by analyzing the effect of group ordering in input documents when summarizing tweets from three distinct linguistic communities: African-American English, Hispanic-aligned Language, and White-aligned Language. Our empirical analysis shows that although the textual quality of the summaries remains consistent regardless of the input document order, in terms of fairness, the results vary significantly depending on how the dialect groups are presented in the input data. Our results suggest that position bias manifests differently in social multi-document summarization, severely impacting the fairness of summarization models.
5/6/2024
💬
On Context Utilization in Summarization with Large Language Models
Mathieu Ravaut, Aixin Sun, Nancy F. Chen, Shafiq Joty
0
0
Large language models (LLMs) excel in abstractive summarization tasks, delivering fluent and pertinent summaries. Recent advancements have extended their capabilities to handle long-input contexts, exceeding 100k tokens. However, in question answering, language models exhibit uneven utilization of their input context. They tend to favor the initial and final segments, resulting in a U-shaped performance pattern concerning where the answer is located within the input. This bias raises concerns, particularly in summarization where crucial content may be dispersed throughout the source document(s). Besides, in summarization, mapping facts from the source to the summary is not trivial as salient content is usually re-phrased. In this paper, we conduct the first comprehensive study on context utilization and position bias in summarization. Our analysis encompasses 6 LLMs, 10 datasets, and 5 evaluation metrics. We introduce a new evaluation benchmark called MiddleSum on the which we benchmark two alternative inference methods to alleviate position bias: hierarchical summarization and incremental summarization. Our code and data can be found here: https://github.com/ntunlp/MiddleSum.
6/17/2024
💬
Exploring Subjectivity for more Human-Centric Assessment of Social Biases in Large Language Models
Paula Akemi Aoyagui, Sharon Ferguson, Anastasia Kuzminykh
0
0
An essential aspect of evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) is identifying potential biases. This is especially relevant considering the substantial evidence that LLMs can replicate human social biases in their text outputs and further influence stakeholders, potentially amplifying harm to already marginalized individuals and communities. Therefore, recent efforts in bias detection invested in automated benchmarks and objective metrics such as accuracy (i.e., an LLMs output is compared against a predefined ground truth). Nonetheless, social biases can be nuanced, oftentimes subjective and context-dependent, where a situation is open to interpretation and there is no ground truth. While these situations can be difficult for automated evaluation systems to identify, human evaluators could potentially pick up on these nuances. In this paper, we discuss the role of human evaluation and subjective interpretation to augment automated processes when identifying biases in LLMs as part of a human-centred approach to evaluate these models.
5/21/2024
💬
Can Large Language Model Summarizers Adapt to Diverse Scientific Communication Goals?
Marcio Fonseca, Shay B. Cohen
0
0
In this work, we investigate the controllability of large language models (LLMs) on scientific summarization tasks. We identify key stylistic and content coverage factors that characterize different types of summaries such as paper reviews, abstracts, and lay summaries. By controlling stylistic features, we find that non-fine-tuned LLMs outperform humans in the MuP review generation task, both in terms of similarity to reference summaries and human preferences. Also, we show that we can improve the controllability of LLMs with keyword-based classifier-free guidance (CFG) while achieving lexical overlap comparable to strong fine-tuned baselines on arXiv and PubMed. However, our results also indicate that LLMs cannot consistently generate long summaries with more than 8 sentences. Furthermore, these models exhibit limited capacity to produce highly abstractive lay summaries. Although LLMs demonstrate strong generic summarization competency, sophisticated content control without costly fine-tuning remains an open problem for domain-specific applications.
6/28/2024