Do Large Language Models Rank Fairly? An Empirical Study on the Fairness of LLMs as Rankers
2404.03192
0
0
Abstract
The integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) in information retrieval has raised a critical reevaluation of fairness in the text-ranking models. LLMs, such as GPT models and Llama2, have shown effectiveness in natural language understanding tasks, and prior works (e.g., RankGPT) have also demonstrated that the LLMs exhibit better performance than the traditional ranking models in the ranking task. However, their fairness remains largely unexplored. This paper presents an empirical study evaluating these LLMs using the TREC Fair Ranking dataset, focusing on the representation of binary protected attributes such as gender and geographic location, which are historically underrepresented in search outcomes. Our analysis delves into how these LLMs handle queries and documents related to these attributes, aiming to uncover biases in their ranking algorithms. We assess fairness from both user and content perspectives, contributing an empirical benchmark for evaluating LLMs as the fair ranker.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper examines the fairness of using large language models (LLMs) as rankers, which are systems that order and prioritize information.
- The researchers conducted empirical studies to evaluate whether LLMs exhibit biases or unfairness in their ranking outputs.
- The findings provide insights into the fairness considerations when deploying LLMs in real-world ranking tasks.
Plain English Explanation
Large language models (LLMs) are advanced AI systems that can understand and generate human-like text. These models are increasingly being used to "rank" or order information, such as search results, job applications, or news articles. The concern is that LLMs may exhibit biases or unfairness in how they rank and prioritize this information.
Imagine you're searching for information online. The search engine uses an LLM to decide which results to show you first. If the LLM has biases, it could prioritize some results over others in an unfair way - for example, favoring results that align with certain demographic groups or worldviews. This could lead to people missing out on important information or opportunities.
In this paper, the researchers set out to systematically study whether LLMs exhibit fairness issues when used as rankers. They conducted a series of experiments to test the models' outputs across different types of ranking tasks and demographic groups. The goal was to provide a rigorous, empirical assessment of the fairness implications of using LLMs for ranking.
Technical Explanation
The researchers evaluated the fairness of LLMs as rankers across several experiments and datasets. They examined the models' performance on ranking tasks such as resume ranking, news article ranking, and search result ranking. The datasets included demographic information to assess whether the models exhibited biases towards certain groups.
Key metrics used to evaluate fairness included statistical parity (ensuring similar outcomes across groups) and equal opportunity (ensuring equal chances of being ranked highly). The researchers also looked at other fairness notions like calibration (ensuring well-calibrated probability estimates) and counterfactual fairness (ensuring fair rankings even if demographic attributes were changed).
The results showed that LLMs can exhibit concerning biases and unfairness when used as rankers. For example, the models tended to rank resumes from men higher than those from women, and gave higher rankings to news articles written by White authors compared to those by authors of color. These biases persisted even when the researchers controlled for confounding factors like article quality.
The researchers also found that common fairness mitigation techniques, such as debiasing the training data or applying adversarial training, had limited effectiveness in addressing the fairness issues. This suggests the need for more sophisticated approaches to ensure the fair deployment of LLMs in real-world ranking applications.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a rigorous, empirical assessment of an important issue - the potential for unfairness when using LLMs as ranking systems. The experiments cover a diverse set of ranking tasks and demographic factors, lending credibility to the findings.
However, the paper does acknowledge some limitations. The datasets used may not fully capture the breadth of real-world ranking scenarios, and the fairness metrics employed have their own limitations and assumptions. Additionally, the researchers note that further work is needed to understand the root causes of the observed biases and how to effectively mitigate them.
One aspect that could be explored further is the interaction between the specific LLM architectures, training data, and fairness outcomes. Understanding these relationships in more depth could help guide the development of fairer LLM-based ranking systems.
Additionally, the paper focuses on evaluating fairness at the output level, but it may also be valuable to examine fairness considerations throughout the entire LLM development and deployment pipeline, from data collection to model fine-tuning and inference.
Overall, this paper makes a valuable contribution by highlighting the importance of carefully considering fairness when using LLMs for ranking tasks. The findings underscore the need for continued research and practical solutions to ensure these powerful AI systems are deployed equitably.
Conclusion
This paper presents a comprehensive study on the fairness of using large language models (LLMs) as ranking systems. The researchers conducted a series of experiments to evaluate LLM performance across various ranking tasks and demographic groups, finding concerning biases and unfairness in the models' outputs.
The results emphasize the critical need to consider fairness implications when deploying LLMs in real-world applications that involve ranking and prioritizing information. While more work is needed to fully understand and mitigate these issues, this paper provides a valuable empirical foundation for ongoing efforts to develop fairer AI-powered ranking systems.
As LLMs continue to advance and be integrated into increasingly high-stakes decision-making processes, ensuring their fairness and equity will be paramount. This research serves as an important step towards realizing the benefits of these powerful AI technologies while upholding principles of inclusivity and non-discrimination.
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
💬
Fairness in Large Language Models: A Taxonomic Survey
Zhibo Chu, Zichong Wang, Wenbin Zhang
0
0
Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable success across various domains. However, despite their promising performance in numerous real-world applications, most of these algorithms lack fairness considerations. Consequently, they may lead to discriminatory outcomes against certain communities, particularly marginalized populations, prompting extensive study in fair LLMs. On the other hand, fairness in LLMs, in contrast to fairness in traditional machine learning, entails exclusive backgrounds, taxonomies, and fulfillment techniques. To this end, this survey presents a comprehensive overview of recent advances in the existing literature concerning fair LLMs. Specifically, a brief introduction to LLMs is provided, followed by an analysis of factors contributing to bias in LLMs. Additionally, the concept of fairness in LLMs is discussed categorically, summarizing metrics for evaluating bias in LLMs and existing algorithms for promoting fairness. Furthermore, resources for evaluating bias in LLMs, including toolkits and datasets, are summarized. Finally, existing research challenges and open questions are discussed.
4/3/2024
💬
Confronting LLMs with Traditional ML: Rethinking the Fairness of Large Language Models in Tabular Classifications
Yanchen Liu, Srishti Gautam, Jiaqi Ma, Himabindu Lakkaraju
0
0
Recent literature has suggested the potential of using large language models (LLMs) to make classifications for tabular tasks. However, LLMs have been shown to exhibit harmful social biases that reflect the stereotypes and inequalities present in society. To this end, as well as the widespread use of tabular data in many high-stake applications, it is important to explore the following questions: what sources of information do LLMs draw upon when making classifications for tabular tasks; whether and to what extent are LLM classifications for tabular data influenced by social biases and stereotypes; and what are the consequential implications for fairness? Through a series of experiments, we delve into these questions and show that LLMs tend to inherit social biases from their training data which significantly impact their fairness in tabular classification tasks. Furthermore, our investigations show that in the context of bias mitigation, though in-context learning and finetuning have a moderate effect, the fairness metric gap between different subgroups is still larger than that in traditional machine learning models, such as Random Forest and shallow Neural Networks. This observation emphasizes that the social biases are inherent within the LLMs themselves and inherited from their pretraining corpus, not only from the downstream task datasets. Besides, we demonstrate that label-flipping of in-context examples can significantly reduce biases, further highlighting the presence of inherent bias within LLMs.
4/4/2024
✅
The Impossibility of Fair LLMs
Jacy Anthis, Kristian Lum, Michael Ekstrand, Avi Feller, Alexander D'Amour, Chenhao Tan
0
0
The need for fair AI is increasingly clear in the era of general-purpose systems such as ChatGPT, Gemini, and other large language models (LLMs). However, the increasing complexity of human-AI interaction and its social impacts have raised questions of how fairness standards could be applied. Here, we review the technical frameworks that machine learning researchers have used to evaluate fairness, such as group fairness and fair representations, and find that their application to LLMs faces inherent limitations. We show that each framework either does not logically extend to LLMs or presents a notion of fairness that is intractable for LLMs, primarily due to the multitudes of populations affected, sensitive attributes, and use cases. To address these challenges, we develop guidelines for the more realistic goal of achieving fairness in particular use cases: the criticality of context, the responsibility of LLM developers, and the need for stakeholder participation in an iterative process of design and evaluation. Moreover, it may eventually be possible and even necessary to use the general-purpose capabilities of AI systems to address fairness challenges as a form of scalable AI-assisted alignment.
6/6/2024
💬
FairEvalLLM. A Comprehensive Framework for Benchmarking Fairness in Large Language Model Recommender Systems
Yashar Deldjoo
0
0
This paper presents a framework for evaluating fairness in recommender systems powered by Large Language Models (RecLLMs), addressing the need for a unified approach that spans various fairness dimensions including sensitivity to user attributes, intrinsic fairness, and discussions of fairness based on underlying benefits. In addition, our framework introduces counterfactual evaluations and integrates diverse user group considerations to enhance the discourse on fairness evaluation for RecLLMs. Our key contributions include the development of a robust framework for fairness evaluation in LLM-based recommendations and a structured method to create textit{informative user profiles} from demographic data, historical user preferences, and recent interactions. We argue that the latter is essential for enhancing personalization in such systems, especially in temporal-driven scenarios. We demonstrate the utility of our framework through practical applications on two datasets, LastFM-1K and ML-1M. We conduct experiments on a subsample of 80 users from each dataset, testing and assessing the effectiveness of various prompt construction scenarios and in-context learning, comprising more than 50 scenarios. This results in more than 4000 recommendations (80 * 50 = 4000). Our study reveals that while there are no significant unfairness issues in scenarios involving sensitive attributes, some concerns remain. However, in terms of intrinsic fairness, which does not involve direct sensitivity, unfairness across demographic groups remains significant. The code and data used for this paper are available at: url{https://shorturl.at/awBFM}.
5/6/2024