Uncovering Name-Based Biases in Large Language Models Through Simulated Trust Game

Overview

• This paper examines whether large language models (LLMs) exhibit similar biases as humans when it comes to judging individuals based on their names, which can suggest gender or race.
• The researchers used a modified Trust Game experiment to test for these biases in three prominent LLMs.
• They carefully curated a list of racially representative surnames to identify players in the game and verified the validity of their prompts.
• The results show that their approach can detect name-based biases in both base and instruction-tuned LLMs.

Plain English Explanation

People often make assumptions about someone's gender or race based on their name, and this can lead to biases and unfair treatment. There is a lot of evidence from studies on humans that this type of name-based bias exists.

As large language models acquire more capabilities and begin to support everyday applications, it's important to understand whether these models also exhibit similar biases when they encounter names in complex social interactions.

This paper takes a different approach than previous work, which has looked at biases in more fundamental aspects of language models, like the way they represent words. Instead, the researchers challenged three prominent language models to predict the outcome of a modified Trust Game, which is a well-known experiment for studying trust and reciprocity between people.

To ensure the validity of their experiments, the researchers carefully chose a list of surnames that represent different races. They also thoroughly checked that their prompts were constructed properly.

The results showed that the researchers' approach was able to detect name-based biases in both the base versions of the language models and the ones that had been further trained on specific instructions.

Technical Explanation

The paper explores whether large language models (LLMs) exhibit similar biases to humans when it comes to judging individuals based on their names, which can suggest gender or race. To test this, the researchers used a modified version of the Trust Game, a well-established paradigm for studying trust and reciprocity.

In the Trust Game, two players are given an initial amount of money. The first player can choose to keep their money or "trust" the second player by passing some or all of it to them. The amount passed is then multiplied, and the second player can choose to keep the full amount or "reciprocate" by sending some back to the first player.

The researchers carefully curated a list of racially representative surnames to identify the players in their version of the Trust Game. They also rigorously verified the construct validity of their prompts to ensure the internal validity of their experiments.

The results showed that the researchers' approach was able to detect name-based biases in both base and instruction-tuned versions of the three prominent language models they tested. This contrasts with previous work that has focused on biases in more fundamental aspects of language models, such as word representations or gender associations.

Critical Analysis

The paper provides a rigorous and well-designed experiment to detect name-based biases in large language models. The researchers' careful curation of racially representative surnames and thorough validation of their prompts help ensure the internal validity of their findings.

However, the paper does not address potential limitations or caveats of their approach. For example, it's unclear how the name-based biases detected in the Trust Game experiment might translate to real-world applications of these language models. There could be other types of biases or context-dependent factors that are not captured by this particular experimental setup.

Additionally, the paper does not explore potential explanations or underlying mechanisms for the observed biases. It would be valuable to understand whether these biases are a result of the training data, model architecture, or other factors. Further research could delve deeper into these questions.

Overall, the paper makes an important contribution by demonstrating that large language models can exhibit name-based biases, similar to human biases. However, more work is needed to fully understand the implications and potential mitigations of these biases in real-world applications.

Conclusion

This paper provides evidence that large language models can exhibit name-based biases, similar to the biases observed in human behavior. By using a modified Trust Game experiment, the researchers were able to detect these biases in both base and instruction-tuned versions of three prominent language models.

The careful experimental design and validation of the researchers' approach lend credibility to their findings. However, the paper does not address potential limitations or explore the underlying causes of the observed biases.

As language models continue to become more capable and widely used, it will be crucial to understand and mitigate any biases they may exhibit. This research highlights the importance of thoroughly auditing these models for biases and developing strategies to ensure they are used in a fair and equitable manner.