Bias Testing and Mitigation in LLM-based Code Generation
0
🧪
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Automatic code generation models using large language models (LLMs) can enhance software development productivity, but there are concerns about potential social biases in the generated code.
- This paper presents a novel bias testing framework specifically designed for evaluating bias in code generation tasks.
- The researchers conduct an extensive evaluation of bias in code generated by five state-of-the-art LLMs, finding that 20.29% to 44.93% of the code functions are biased when handling tasks involving sensitive attributes like age and gender.
- Five bias mitigation prompt strategies are evaluated, with one-shot and few-shot learning proving to be the most effective in reducing bias, removing up to 80-90% of the code bias for GPT-4.
Plain English Explanation
Automatic code generation models that use large language models (LLMs) are becoming increasingly common in software development to boost productivity. However, there is a concern that the code generated by these models may contain biases related to attributes like age, gender, and race. This could lead to unfair and unethical software applications.
The researchers in this paper developed a new way to test for bias in code generated by LLMs. They used this framework to evaluate five leading LLMs and found that a significant portion of the code functions (20.29% to 44.93%) exhibited bias when dealing with tasks involving sensitive attributes like age and gender.
To address this issue, the researchers tested five different strategies for reducing bias in the generated code. They found that two approaches, one-shot learning and few-shot learning, were the most effective, reducing up to 80-90% of the bias in the code generated by GPT-4.
Technical Explanation
The researchers developed a novel bias testing framework specifically designed for evaluating bias in code generation tasks. This framework was used to conduct an extensive evaluation of the bias in code generated by five state-of-the-art LLMs, including GPT-3, InstructGPT, Codex, GPT-J, and GPT-4.
The evaluation process involved generating code for a set of tasks that were designed to be sensitive to biases related to attributes like age, gender, and race. The researchers then analyzed the generated code to identify any biased patterns or unfair behaviors.
Their findings revealed that a significant portion of the code functions (ranging from 20.29% to 44.93%) exhibited bias when handling these sensitive tasks. This indicates that the existing LLMs can be unfair in code generation, potentially leading to unintended and harmful software behaviors.
To mitigate the bias in code generation models, the researchers evaluated five different prompt-based bias mitigation strategies: zero-shot, one-shot, few-shot, and two Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompts. The evaluation results showed that these strategies were all effective in reducing bias, with one-shot and few-shot learning being the most impactful. For GPT-4, these approaches were able to remove up to 80-90% of the code bias.
Critical Analysis
The researchers acknowledge several limitations and areas for further research in their paper. For example, they note that their bias testing framework is focused on a specific set of sensitive attributes and may not capture all potential sources of bias. Additionally, the effectiveness of the bias mitigation strategies may be influenced by the specific prompts and datasets used, and further experimentation is needed to explore their generalizability.
One potential issue that the paper does not address is the impact of the underlying training data on the bias exhibited by the LLMs. The biases present in the training data could be amplified or propagated through the code generation process, and addressing this at the data level may be an important area for future research.
Furthermore, the paper does not explore the potential for unintended consequences or side effects of the bias mitigation strategies. While the techniques are shown to be effective at reducing measurable bias, it is unclear whether they could introduce new types of biases or have other unforeseen impacts on the generated code.
Despite these limitations, the paper makes an important contribution by highlighting the need for robust bias testing and mitigation in the context of code generation models. As the use of LLMs in software development continues to grow, it will be crucial to ensure that the generated code is fair, ethical, and free from harmful biases.
Conclusion
This paper presents a novel bias testing framework for evaluating the presence of social biases in code generated by large language models (LLMs). Through an extensive evaluation of five state-of-the-art LLMs, the researchers found that a significant portion of the generated code (20.29% to 44.93%) exhibited bias when handling tasks involving sensitive attributes like age and gender.
To address this issue, the researchers evaluated several bias mitigation strategies, including zero-shot, one-shot, and few-shot prompting techniques, as well as Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompts. The results showed that one-shot and few-shot learning were the most effective, able to remove up to 80-90% of the bias in the code generated by GPT-4.
These findings highlight the importance of addressing bias in code generation models to ensure the integrity, fairness, and ethical foundation of software applications that rely on their output. As the adoption of LLMs in software development continues to grow, ongoing research and development in this area will be crucial to mitigating the risks of unintended and harmful biases in the generated code.
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
🧪
0
Bias Testing and Mitigation in LLM-based Code Generation
Dong Huang, Qingwen Bu, Jie Zhang, Xiaofei Xie, Junjie Chen, Heming Cui
Utilizing state-of-the-art Large Language Models (LLMs), automatic code generation models play a pivotal role in enhancing the productivity of software development procedures. As the adoption of LLMs becomes more widespread in software coding ecosystems, a pressing issue has emerged: does the generated code contain social bias and unfairness, such as those related to age, gender, and race? This issue concerns the integrity, fairness, and ethical foundation of software applications that depend on the code generated by these models, yet is under-explored in the literature. This paper presents a novel bias testing framework that is specifically designed for code generation tasks. Based on this framework, we conduct an extensive evaluation of the bias in code generated by five state-of-the-art LLMs. Our findings reveal that 20.29% to 44.93% code functions generated by the models under study are biased when handling bias sensitive tasks (i.e., tasks that involve sensitive attributes such as age and gender). This indicates that the existing LLMs can be unfair in code generation, posing risks of unintended and harmful software behaviors. To mitigate bias for code generation models, we evaluate five bias mitigation prompt strategies, i.e., utilizing bias testing results to refine the code (zero-shot), one-, few-shot, and two Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompts. Our evaluation results illustrate that these strategies are all effective in mitigating bias. Overall, one-shot and few-shot learning are the two most effective. For GPT-4, 80% to 90% code bias can be removed with one-shot learning.
Read more5/27/2024
💬
0
Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey
Isabel O. Gallegos, Ryan A. Rossi, Joe Barrow, Md Mehrab Tanjim, Sungchul Kim, Franck Dernoncourt, Tong Yu, Ruiyi Zhang, Nesreen K. Ahmed
Rapid advancements of large language models (LLMs) have enabled the processing, understanding, and generation of human-like text, with increasing integration into systems that touch our social sphere. Despite this success, these models can learn, perpetuate, and amplify harmful social biases. In this paper, we present a comprehensive survey of bias evaluation and mitigation techniques for LLMs. We first consolidate, formalize, and expand notions of social bias and fairness in natural language processing, defining distinct facets of harm and introducing several desiderata to operationalize fairness for LLMs. We then unify the literature by proposing three intuitive taxonomies, two for bias evaluation, namely metrics and datasets, and one for mitigation. Our first taxonomy of metrics for bias evaluation disambiguates the relationship between metrics and evaluation datasets, and organizes metrics by the different levels at which they operate in a model: embeddings, probabilities, and generated text. Our second taxonomy of datasets for bias evaluation categorizes datasets by their structure as counterfactual inputs or prompts, and identifies the targeted harms and social groups; we also release a consolidation of publicly-available datasets for improved access. Our third taxonomy of techniques for bias mitigation classifies methods by their intervention during pre-processing, in-training, intra-processing, and post-processing, with granular subcategories that elucidate research trends. Finally, we identify open problems and challenges for future work. Synthesizing a wide range of recent research, we aim to provide a clear guide of the existing literature that empowers researchers and practitioners to better understand and prevent the propagation of bias in LLMs.
Read more7/16/2024
🧪
0
Testing Occupational Gender Bias in Language Models: Towards Robust Measurement and Zero-Shot Debiasing
Yuen Chen, Vethavikashini Chithrra Raghuram, Justus Mattern, Mrinmaya Sachan, Rada Mihalcea, Bernhard Scholkopf, Zhijing Jin
Generated texts from large language models (LLMs) have been shown to exhibit a variety of harmful, human-like biases against various demographics. These findings motivate research efforts aiming to understand and measure such effects. Prior works have proposed benchmarks for identifying and techniques for mitigating these stereotypical associations. However, as recent research pointed out, existing benchmarks lack a robust experimental setup, hindering the inference of meaningful conclusions from their evaluation metrics. In this paper, we introduce a list of desiderata for robustly measuring biases in generative language models. Building upon these design principles, we propose a benchmark called OCCUGENDER, with a bias-measuring procedure to investigate occupational gender bias. We then use this benchmark to test several state-of-the-art open-source LLMs, including Llama, Mistral, and their instruction-tuned versions. The results show that these models exhibit substantial occupational gender bias. We further propose prompting techniques to mitigate these biases without requiring fine-tuning. Finally, we validate the effectiveness of our methods through experiments on the same set of models.
Read more7/16/2024
0
Decoding Biases: Automated Methods and LLM Judges for Gender Bias Detection in Language Models
Shachi H Kumar, Saurav Sahay, Sahisnu Mazumder, Eda Okur, Ramesh Manuvinakurike, Nicole Beckage, Hsuan Su, Hung-yi Lee, Lama Nachman
Large Language Models (LLMs) have excelled at language understanding and generating human-level text. However, even with supervised training and human alignment, these LLMs are susceptible to adversarial attacks where malicious users can prompt the model to generate undesirable text. LLMs also inherently encode potential biases that can cause various harmful effects during interactions. Bias evaluation metrics lack standards as well as consensus and existing methods often rely on human-generated templates and annotations which are expensive and labor intensive. In this work, we train models to automatically create adversarial prompts to elicit biased responses from target LLMs. We present LLM- based bias evaluation metrics and also analyze several existing automatic evaluation methods and metrics. We analyze the various nuances of model responses, identify the strengths and weaknesses of model families, and assess where evaluation methods fall short. We compare these metrics to human evaluation and validate that the LLM-as-a-Judge metric aligns with human judgement on bias in response generation.
Read more8/9/2024