Quantitative Certification of Bias in Large Language Models
2405.18780
0
0
Abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) can produce responses that exhibit social biases and support stereotypes. However, conventional benchmarking is insufficient to thoroughly evaluate LLM bias, as it can not scale to large sets of prompts and provides no guarantees. Therefore, we propose a novel certification framework QuaCer-B (Quantitative Certification of Bias) that provides formal guarantees on obtaining unbiased responses from target LLMs under large sets of prompts. A certificate consists of high-confidence bounds on the probability of obtaining biased responses from the LLM for any set of prompts containing sensitive attributes, sampled from a distribution. We illustrate the bias certification in LLMs for prompts with various prefixes drawn from given distributions. We consider distributions of random token sequences, mixtures of manual jailbreaks, and jailbreaks in the LLM's embedding space to certify its bias. We certify popular LLMs with QuaCer-B and present novel insights into their biases.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper presents a methodology for quantitatively certifying bias in large language models (LLMs).
- The researchers develop a framework to measure the degree of bias in LLM outputs across different demographic attributes.
- The approach involves probing LLMs with carefully designed prompts to uncover biases in their language generation.
- The findings have important implications for understanding and mitigating bias in powerful AI systems.
Plain English Explanation
The paper explores a way to measure the biases present in large language models (LLMs) - powerful AI systems that can generate human-like text. These models are increasingly being used for tasks like writing, translation, and even decision-making, but they can also pick up and amplify societal biases if not carefully monitored.
The researchers developed a systematic method to probe LLMs and quantify the degree of bias they exhibit across different demographic characteristics like gender, race, age, and so on. This involves crafting specific prompts that target potential areas of bias and then analyzing the model's responses. By doing this, they can get a clear sense of where the model is making unfair or inaccurate associations.
Understanding these biases is crucial, as LLMs are becoming more influential in high-stakes domains like healthcare, finance, and criminal justice. Uncovering and mitigating these biases can help ensure these AI systems make fair and unbiased decisions. The insights from this research could inform the development of more equitable and accountable AI technologies going forward.
Technical Explanation
The paper presents a framework for Quantitative Certification of Bias in Large Language Models. The researchers developed a methodology to systematically measure the biases present in the outputs of large language models (LLMs) across different demographic attributes.
The key elements of their approach include:
- Prompt Design: The researchers crafted a diverse set of prompts targeting potential areas of bias, such as associations between professions and gender, or personality traits and race.
- Bias Quantification: They then used these prompts to elicit responses from LLMs and analyzed the outputs to calculate a "bias score" that quantifies the degree of unfair associations made by the model.
- Comparative Analysis: The researchers compared the bias scores of different LLMs to understand how model architecture, training data, and other factors influence the emergence of biases.
The findings demonstrate that LLMs can exhibit significant biases, which have important implications for their use in high-stakes applications. The methodology presented in this paper provides a framework for Bias Neutralization in Large Language Models and can inform efforts to develop more equitable and accountable AI systems.
Critical Analysis
The paper makes a valuable contribution by providing a systematic approach to quantifying bias in large language models. However, there are a few caveats and areas for further research:
-
Prompt Representativeness: The prompts used in the study, while carefully designed, may not capture the full breadth of potential biases present in LLMs. Impact of Unstated Norms on Bias Analysis of Language Models highlights the need to consider implicit biases that may not be surfaced by explicit prompts.
-
Generalizability: The study focused on a limited set of LLMs and demographic attributes. Further research is needed to understand how the framework applies to a wider range of models and bias dimensions, such as Bias Patterns in the Application of Large Language Models to Clinical Decision Support.
-
Mitigation Strategies: While the paper presents a methodology for quantifying bias, it does not explore specific techniques for Measuring and Mitigating Implicit Bias in Large Language Models. Developing effective debiasing approaches is a crucial next step.
Overall, this paper provides a valuable foundation for understanding and addressing bias in large language models, but more work is needed to fully address the complex challenges of building fair and accountable AI systems.
Conclusion
The paper introduces a framework for quantitatively certifying bias in large language models (LLMs), a critical step in ensuring the responsible development and deployment of these powerful AI systems. By systematically probing LLMs with carefully designed prompts, the researchers were able to measure the degree of unfair associations made by the models across different demographic attributes.
The findings highlight the significant biases present in current LLMs, which have important implications for their use in high-stakes applications like healthcare, finance, and criminal justice. The insights from this research can inform efforts to Mitigate Bias in Large Language Models and develop more equitable and accountable AI technologies. Continuing to advance our understanding and mitigation of bias in LLMs will be crucial as these models become increasingly influential in shaping decisions that impact people's lives.
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
Beyond Performance: Quantifying and Mitigating Label Bias in LLMs
Yuval Reif, Roy Schwartz
0
0
Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable adaptability to diverse tasks, by leveraging context prompts containing instructions, or minimal input-output examples. However, recent work revealed they also exhibit label bias -- an undesirable preference toward predicting certain answers over others. Still, detecting and measuring this bias reliably and at scale has remained relatively unexplored. In this study, we evaluate different approaches to quantifying label bias in a model's predictions, conducting a comprehensive investigation across 279 classification tasks and ten LLMs. Our investigation reveals substantial label bias in models both before and after debiasing attempts, as well as highlights the importance of outcomes-based evaluation metrics, which were not previously used in this regard. We further propose a novel label bias calibration method tailored for few-shot prompting, which outperforms recent calibration approaches for both improving performance and mitigating label bias. Our results emphasize that label bias in the predictions of LLMs remains a barrier to their reliability.
5/7/2024
💬
Bias Neutralization Framework: Measuring Fairness in Large Language Models with Bias Intelligence Quotient (BiQ)
Malur Narayan, John Pasmore, Elton Sampaio, Vijay Raghavan, Gabriella Waters
0
0
The burgeoning influence of Large Language Models (LLMs) in shaping public discourse and decision-making underscores the imperative to address inherent biases within these AI systems. In the wake of AI's expansive integration across sectors, addressing racial bias in LLMs has never been more critical. This paper introduces a novel framework called Comprehensive Bias Neutralization Framework (CBNF) which embodies an innovative approach to quantifying and mitigating biases within LLMs. Our framework combines the Large Language Model Bias Index (LLMBI) [Oketunji, A., Anas, M., Saina, D., (2023)] and Bias removaL with No Demographics (BLIND) [Orgad, H., Belinkov, Y. (2023)] methodologies to create a new metric called Bias Intelligence Quotient (BiQ)which detects, measures, and mitigates racial bias in LLMs without reliance on demographic annotations. By introducing a new metric called BiQ that enhances LLMBI with additional fairness metrics, CBNF offers a multi-dimensional metric for bias assessment, underscoring the necessity of a nuanced approach to fairness in AI [Mehrabi et al., 2021]. This paper presents a detailed analysis of Latimer AI (a language model incrementally trained on black history and culture) in comparison to ChatGPT 3.5, illustrating Latimer AI's efficacy in detecting racial, cultural, and gender biases through targeted training and refined bias mitigation strategies [Latimer & Bender, 2023].
4/30/2024
Reevaluating Bias Detection in Language Models: The Role of Implicit Norm
Farnaz Kohankhaki, Jacob-Junqi Tian, David Emerson, Laleh Seyyed-Kalantari, Faiza Khan Khattak
0
0
Large language models (LLMs), trained on vast datasets, can carry biases that manifest in various forms, from overt discrimination to implicit stereotypes. One facet of bias is performance disparities in LLMs, often harming underprivileged groups, such as racial minorities. A common approach to quantifying bias is to use template-based bias probes, which explicitly state group membership (e.g. White) and evaluate if the outcome of a task, sentiment analysis for instance, is invariant to the change of group membership (e.g. change White race to Black). This approach is widely used in bias quantification. However, in this work, we find evidence of an unexpectedly overlooked consequence of using template-based probes for LLM bias quantification. We find that in doing so, text examples associated with White ethnicities appear to be classified as exhibiting negative sentiment at elevated rates. We hypothesize that the scenario arises artificially through a mismatch between the pre-training text of LLMs and the templates used to measure bias through reporting bias, unstated norms that imply group membership without explicit statement. Our finding highlights the potential misleading impact of varying group membership through explicit mention in bias quantification
4/9/2024
🌀
Bias patterns in the application of LLMs for clinical decision support: A comprehensive study
Raphael Poulain, Hamed Fayyaz, Rahmatollah Beheshti
0
0
Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as powerful candidates to inform clinical decision-making processes. While these models play an increasingly prominent role in shaping the digital landscape, two growing concerns emerge in healthcare applications: 1) to what extent do LLMs exhibit social bias based on patients' protected attributes (like race), and 2) how do design choices (like architecture design and prompting strategies) influence the observed biases? To answer these questions rigorously, we evaluated eight popular LLMs across three question-answering (QA) datasets using clinical vignettes (patient descriptions) standardized for bias evaluations. We employ red-teaming strategies to analyze how demographics affect LLM outputs, comparing both general-purpose and clinically-trained models. Our extensive experiments reveal various disparities (some significant) across protected groups. We also observe several counter-intuitive patterns such as larger models not being necessarily less biased and fined-tuned models on medical data not being necessarily better than the general-purpose models. Furthermore, our study demonstrates the impact of prompt design on bias patterns and shows that specific phrasing can influence bias patterns and reflection-type approaches (like Chain of Thought) can reduce biased outcomes effectively. Consistent with prior studies, we call on additional evaluations, scrutiny, and enhancement of LLMs used in clinical decision support applications.
4/24/2024