Social Bias Evaluation for Large Language Models Requires Prompt Variations

Overview

• This paper examines how the specific prompts used to evaluate and mitigate biases in large language models (LLMs) can significantly affect the results.
• Previous studies have often relied on a limited set of prompts, but this paper investigates the sensitivity of LLMs to different prompt variations, including task instructions, few-shot examples, and debiasing prompts.
• The findings reveal that LLM performance and social bias can fluctuate dramatically depending on the prompts used, and there may be tradeoffs between reducing bias and maintaining task performance.

Plain English Explanation

Large language models (LLMs) like GPT-3 and BERT are powerful AI systems that can generate human-like text. However, these models can exhibit concerning social biases that can be amplified in their outputs. Researchers have been working to evaluate and mitigate these biases, often by using downstream tasks as prompts to test the models.

But this paper argues that the specific prompts used in these evaluations can have a big impact on the results. The researchers found that LLMs are highly sensitive to changes in the prompts, including the task instructions, the examples provided, and even the debiasing prompts themselves. Depending on the prompts used, the same LLM could perform very differently on a task and exhibit varying degrees of social bias.

In other words, LLMs can be a bit like chameleons - their outputs can change dramatically based on the context they're given. This means that evaluations and mitigation efforts that rely on a limited set of prompts may not be capturing the full picture of an LLM's biases.

The researchers recommend using a diverse set of prompts, as they did in this study, to get a more comprehensive understanding of an LLM's social biases and the tradeoffs between reducing bias and maintaining task performance. This is an important consideration for computational social science tasks that rely on these models.

Technical Explanation

This paper investigates the sensitivity of large language models (LLMs) to different prompt variations when evaluating and mitigating social biases. Previous studies have often used a limited set of prompts, such as downstream tasks, to examine LLM biases. However, the researchers argue that LLM outputs are highly dependent on the specific prompts used, which can lead to fluctuations in model performance and social bias.

The study design involved testing various prompt variations, including task instructions, few-shot examples, and debiasing prompts, to analyze their impact on LLM behavior. The researchers found that the ranking of LLMs can change significantly when comparing models for task performance and social bias, depending on the prompts used. Additionally, they observed tradeoffs between reducing social bias and maintaining task performance - prompts that reduced bias sometimes led to lower task performance.

The researchers attribute this sensitivity to the ambiguity of the instances being processed by advanced LLMs, which can result in a range of possible outputs. They recommend using a diverse set of prompts, as done in this study, to better understand the effects of prompts on social bias in LLMs.

Critical Analysis

The researchers make a compelling case that the prompts used in evaluating and mitigating social biases in LLMs can have a significant impact on the results. By considering a broader range of prompt variations, the study provides valuable insights into the complex relationship between LLM performance, social bias, and prompt design.

However, the paper does not delve into the potential reasons why LLMs might be so sensitive to prompt variations. It would be interesting to explore whether this sensitivity is a fundamental limitation of current LLM architectures or if there are ways to make the models more robust to prompt changes.

Additionally, the paper does not discuss the potential implications of this sensitivity for real-world applications of LLMs, where the prompts used may not be as carefully designed as in a research setting. Further research is needed to understand how this prompt sensitivity might manifest in practical scenarios and what strategies can be employed to mitigate its impact.

Overall, this study highlights an important consideration in the ongoing efforts to evaluate and mitigate social biases in large language models. By encouraging the use of diverse prompt sets and examining the tradeoffs between performance and bias, the researchers have made a valuable contribution to the computational social science community.

Conclusion

This paper demonstrates that the prompts used to evaluate and mitigate social biases in large language models (LLMs) can have a significant impact on the results. The researchers found that LLMs are highly sensitive to changes in prompt variations, such as task instructions, few-shot examples, and debiasing prompts, leading to fluctuations in model performance and social bias.

The findings suggest that previous studies relying on a limited set of prompts may not have captured the full picture of LLM biases. To address this, the researchers recommend using a diverse set of prompts, as they did in this study, to better understand the effects of prompt design on social bias in LLMs.

This work highlights an important consideration for researchers and practitioners working to evaluate and mitigate social biases in large language models, particularly in the context of computational social science tasks. By acknowledging and addressing the prompt sensitivity of LLMs, the research community can work towards more robust and trustworthy models that can be safely deployed in real-world applications.