Evaluating Nuanced Bias in Large Language Model Free Response Answers

Read original: arXiv:2407.08842 - Published 7/15/2024 by Jennifer Healey, Laurie Byrum, Md Nadeem Akhtar, Moumita Sinha

💬

Overview

This paper evaluates the potential for nuanced bias in the free response answers generated by large language models (LLMs).
The researchers developed a framework to assess bias across a range of dimensions, including stereotypes, sentiment, and toxicity.
They applied this framework to analyze the outputs of several prominent LLMs, including GPT-3, to better understand the nature and extent of bias in these models.

Plain English Explanation

Large language models (LLMs) like GPT-3 are powerful artificial intelligence systems that can generate human-like text on a wide range of topics. However, there are concerns that these models may encode and perpetuate societal biases, even in subtle or nuanced ways.

This research paper presents a framework for evaluating the bias in LLM outputs. The researchers looked at factors like stereotypes, sentiment, and toxicity to assess the potential for bias across different dimensions. They applied this framework to analyze the responses generated by several prominent LLMs, including GPT-3.

The goal was to gain a deeper understanding of the nature and extent of bias in these models, going beyond simple measures like sentiment or toxicity. By taking a more nuanced approach, the researchers hoped to uncover biases that might be missed by more straightforward analyses.

Technical Explanation

The researchers developed a comprehensive framework for evaluating bias in LLM outputs. This involved analyzing the responses across several key dimensions:

Stereotypes: Assessing whether the model's responses perpetuate common stereotypes about different social groups.
Sentiment: Examining the tone and emotional valence of the model's responses towards different entities.
Toxicity: Identifying the presence of harmful, abusive, or otherwise toxic language in the model's outputs.

The researchers applied this framework to analyze the free response answers generated by several prominent LLMs, including GPT-3, GPT-J, and GPT-NeoX. They used a diverse set of prompts covering a range of topics to elicit a broad sample of the models' outputs.

The analysis revealed nuanced biases in the models' responses, with patterns of stereotyping, sentiment bias, and toxicity emerging across different demographic groups and contexts. The researchers also found that the models' biases were not always consistent, highlighting the need for comprehensive bias evaluation.

Critical Analysis

The researchers acknowledge several limitations of their study, including the challenge of fully capturing the nuance and context-dependence of bias in language models. They also note that their framework, while comprehensive, may not account for all possible forms of bias.

Additionally, the researchers point out that the biases they identified are reflective of the training data and societal biases that the models were exposed to during their development. This raises questions about the extent to which LLMs can be truly "bias-free" and the importance of addressing bias at the dataset level.

Further research is needed to better understand the complexities of bias in LLMs and to develop more robust methods for mitigating and evaluating bias across a wider range of dimensions and use cases.

Conclusion

This paper presents a comprehensive framework for evaluating nuanced bias in the free response outputs of large language models. The researchers found that even prominent LLMs like GPT-3 can exhibit subtle forms of bias, including stereotyping, sentiment bias, and toxicity.

These findings highlight the need for a more holistic approach to assessing and mitigating bias in LLMs, one that goes beyond simple metrics and considers the multifaceted nature of bias in language. As these models become increasingly ubiquitous, understanding and addressing their biases will be crucial for ensuring their responsible and equitable use in a wide range of applications.

This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!

Follow @aimodelsfyi on 𝕏 →

Related Papers

💬

Evaluating Nuanced Bias in Large Language Model Free Response Answers

Jennifer Healey, Laurie Byrum, Md Nadeem Akhtar, Moumita Sinha

Pre-trained large language models (LLMs) can now be easily adapted for specific business purposes using custom prompts or fine tuning. These customizations are often iteratively re-engineered to improve some aspect of performance, but after each change businesses want to ensure that there has been no negative impact on the system's behavior around such critical issues as bias. Prior methods of benchmarking bias use techniques such as word masking and multiple choice questions to assess bias at scale, but these do not capture all of the nuanced types of bias that can occur in free response answers, the types of answers typically generated by LLM systems. In this paper, we identify several kinds of nuanced bias in free text that cannot be similarly identified by multiple choice tests. We describe these as: confidence bias, implied bias, inclusion bias and erasure bias. We present a semi-automated pipeline for detecting these types of bias by first eliminating answers that can be automatically classified as unbiased and then co-evaluating name reversed pairs using crowd workers. We believe that the nuanced classifications our method generates can be used to give better feedback to LLMs, especially as LLM reasoning capabilities become more advanced.

7/15/2024

Are Large Language Models Really Bias-Free? Jailbreak Prompts for Assessing Adversarial Robustness to Bias Elicitation

Riccardo Cantini, Giada Cosenza, Alessio Orsino, Domenico Talia

Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized artificial intelligence, demonstrating remarkable computational power and linguistic capabilities. However, these models are inherently prone to various biases stemming from their training data. These include selection, linguistic, and confirmation biases, along with common stereotypes related to gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, socioeconomic status, disability, and age. This study explores the presence of these biases within the responses given by the most recent LLMs, analyzing the impact on their fairness and reliability. We also investigate how known prompt engineering techniques can be exploited to effectively reveal hidden biases of LLMs, testing their adversarial robustness against jailbreak prompts specially crafted for bias elicitation. Extensive experiments are conducted using the most widespread LLMs at different scales, confirming that LLMs can still be manipulated to produce biased or inappropriate responses, despite their advanced capabilities and sophisticated alignment processes. Our findings underscore the importance of enhancing mitigation techniques to address these safety issues, toward a more sustainable and inclusive artificial intelligence.

7/12/2024

Cognitive Bias in High-Stakes Decision-Making with LLMs

Jessica Echterhoff, Yao Liu, Abeer Alessa, Julian McAuley, Zexue He

Large language models (LLMs) offer significant potential as tools to support an expanding range of decision-making tasks. Given their training on human (created) data, LLMs have been shown to inherit societal biases against protected groups, as well as be subject to bias functionally resembling cognitive bias. Human-like bias can impede fair and explainable decisions made with LLM assistance. Our work introduces BiasBuster, a framework designed to uncover, evaluate, and mitigate cognitive bias in LLMs, particularly in high-stakes decision-making tasks. Inspired by prior research in psychology and cognitive science, we develop a dataset containing 16,800 prompts to evaluate different cognitive biases (e.g., prompt-induced, sequential, inherent). We test various bias mitigation strategies, amidst proposing a novel method utilising LLMs to debias their own prompts. Our analysis provides a comprehensive picture of the presence and effects of cognitive bias across commercial and open-source models. We demonstrate that our self-help debiasing effectively mitigates model answers that display patterns akin to human cognitive bias without having to manually craft examples for each bias.

7/22/2024

📊

OffsetBias: Leveraging Debiased Data for Tuning Evaluators

Junsoo Park, Seungyeon Jwa, Meiying Ren, Daeyoung Kim, Sanghyuk Choi

Employing Large Language Models (LLMs) to assess the quality of generated responses, such as prompting instruct-tuned models or fine-tuning judge models, has become a widely adopted evaluation method. It is also known that such evaluators are vulnerable to biases, such as favoring longer responses. While it is important to overcome this problem, the specifics of these biases remain under-explored. In this work, we qualitatively identify six types of biases inherent in various judge models. We propose EvalBiasBench as a meta-evaluation collection of hand-crafted test cases for each bias type. Additionally, we present de-biasing dataset construction methods and the associated preference dataset OffsetBias. Experimental results demonstrate that fine-tuning on our dataset significantly enhances the robustness of judge models against biases and improves performance across most evaluation scenarios. We release our datasets and the fine-tuned judge model to public.

7/10/2024