A Study of Implicit Ranking Unfairness in Large Language Models
0
💬
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated superior ranking abilities, but concerns have emerged about discriminatory ranking behaviors based on users' sensitive attributes.
- This paper identifies a more subtle form of discrimination, termed "implicit ranking unfairness," where LLMs exhibit discriminatory ranking patterns based solely on non-sensitive user profiles, such as user names.
- The paper aims to comprehensively explore this issue, focusing on three research aspects: evaluation, root cause analysis, and mitigation.
Plain English Explanation
Large language models (LLMs) are a type of artificial intelligence that have become very good at tasks like ranking and sorting information. However, researchers have found that these models can also exhibit unfair or discriminatory behavior when it comes to how they rank and present information to users.
One of the more concerning forms of unfairness is called "implicit ranking unfairness." This happens when the LLM makes decisions about how to rank and display information based solely on non-sensitive characteristics of the user, such as their name, rather than on the actual relevance or importance of the information. This type of unfairness can be harder to detect than discrimination based on sensitive attributes like gender, but it can still have a significant impact on the fairness and inclusiveness of the information that users receive.
The researchers in this paper set out to take a deep dive into this issue of implicit ranking unfairness. They wanted to: 1) develop a way to evaluate how severe the problem is, 2) understand what's causing the unfairness, and 3) find effective ways to mitigate the unfairness while still maintaining the accuracy of the LLM.
Their goal is to help the AI research community identify and address this important issue, in order to build more ethical and trustworthy large language models that don't inadvertently reinforce unfair biases or discriminate against certain groups of users.
Technical Explanation
To explore the issue of implicit ranking unfairness in LLMs, the researchers took a multi-pronged approach:
-
Evaluation Method: They proposed a new evaluation framework to measure the severity of implicit ranking unfairness in LLMs. This involved creating datasets with user profiles that varied in non-sensitive characteristics like names, and then assessing how the LLM's ranking decisions were impacted by these profile differences.
-
Root Cause Analysis: The researchers investigated the reasons behind the observed implicit ranking unfairness. They found that LLMs can pick up on subtle social and cultural biases present in the training data, and then amplify those biases when making ranking decisions.
-
Mitigation Methods: To address the unfairness, the team developed a pairwise regression-based data augmentation technique. This approach works by creating synthetic training data that helps the LLM learn to rank more fairly, without significantly compromising the model's overall accuracy.
Through their experiments, the researchers demonstrated that their mitigation approach was able to substantially improve the fairness of the LLM's ranking outputs, while only incurring a small reduction in overall performance. This suggests that it is possible to build large language models that are both highly capable and equitable in their decision-making.
Critical Analysis
The researchers in this paper have done an admirable job of uncovering and addressing an important, yet often overlooked, issue in the development of large language models. By focusing on the problem of implicit ranking unfairness, they have shed light on a more subtle form of algorithmic bias that can have significant real-world consequences.
One potential limitation of the study is the reliance on synthetic datasets for the evaluation. While this approach allows for more controlled experimentation, it raises questions about how the observed unfairness patterns would manifest in real-world applications with more complex user profiles and information needs.
Additionally, the mitigation method proposed in the paper, while effective, may not be a complete solution. There may be other sources of unfairness, such as biases encoded in the LLM's underlying language model, that are not fully addressed by the data augmentation approach.
Despite these caveats, this research represents an important step forward in the quest to build large language models that are not only highly capable, but also fair and ethical in their decision-making. As the use of these models continues to expand, it will be crucial for the AI research community to remain vigilant and proactive in identifying and addressing issues of algorithmic bias and discrimination.
Conclusion
This paper makes a compelling case for the need to address the problem of implicit ranking unfairness in large language models. By uncovering this more subtle form of discrimination, the researchers have highlighted the importance of going beyond simple fairness metrics and digging deeper into the complex ways in which these models can perpetuate societal biases.
The evaluation framework, root cause analysis, and mitigation approach presented in this paper provide a solid foundation for future work in this area. As large language models continue to become more ubiquitous in a wide range of applications, it will be crucial for the AI research community to build on this research and ensure that these powerful tools are developed and deployed in a responsible and equitable manner.
By tackling issues of algorithmic fairness head-on, the researchers in this paper have made an important contribution to the ongoing effort to realize the full potential of large language models while upholding the ethical principles that should guide their development and use.
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
A Study of Implicit Ranking Unfairness in Large Language Models
Chen Xu, Wenjie Wang, Yuxin Li, Liang Pang, Jun Xu, Tat-Seng Chua
Recently, Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated a superior ability to serve as ranking models. However, concerns have arisen as LLMs will exhibit discriminatory ranking behaviors based on users' sensitive attributes (eg gender). Worse still, in this paper, we identify a subtler form of discrimination in LLMs, termed textit{implicit ranking unfairness}, where LLMs exhibit discriminatory ranking patterns based solely on non-sensitive user profiles, such as user names. Such implicit unfairness is more widespread but less noticeable, threatening the ethical foundation. To comprehensively explore such unfairness, our analysis will focus on three research aspects: (1) We propose an evaluation method to investigate the severity of implicit ranking unfairness. (2) We uncover the reasons for causing such unfairness. (3) To mitigate such unfairness effectively, we utilize a pair-wise regression method to conduct fair-aware data augmentation for LLM fine-tuning. The experiment demonstrates that our method outperforms existing approaches in ranking fairness, achieving this with only a small reduction in accuracy. Lastly, we emphasize the need for the community to identify and mitigate the implicit unfairness, aiming to avert the potential deterioration in the reinforced human-LLMs ecosystem deterioration.
Read more9/26/2024
0
Do Large Language Models Rank Fairly? An Empirical Study on the Fairness of LLMs as Rankers
Yuan Wang, Xuyang Wu, Hsin-Tai Wu, Zhiqiang Tao, Yi Fang
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.
Read more6/27/2024
💬
0
Fairness in Large Language Models in Three Hour
Thang Doan Viet, Zichong Wang, Minh Nhat Nguyen, Wenbin Zhang
Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable success across various domains but often lack fairness considerations, potentially leading to discriminatory outcomes against marginalized populations. Unlike fairness in traditional machine learning, fairness in LLMs involves unique backgrounds, taxonomies, and fulfillment techniques. This tutorial provides a systematic overview of recent advances in the literature concerning fair LLMs, beginning with real-world case studies to introduce LLMs, followed by an analysis of bias causes therein. The concept of fairness in LLMs is then explored, summarizing the strategies for evaluating bias and the algorithms designed to promote fairness. Additionally, resources for assessing bias in LLMs, including toolkits and datasets, are compiled, and current research challenges and open questions in the field are discussed. The repository is available at url{https://github.com/LavinWong/Fairness-in-Large-Language-Models}.
Read more8/6/2024
💬
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