Debiasing isn't enough! -- On the Effectiveness of Debiasing MLMs and their Social Biases in Downstream Tasks

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2210.02938v1
• Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2022 14:08:57 GMT
• Title: Debiasing isn't enough! -- On the Effectiveness of Debiasing MLMs and their Social Biases in Downstream Tasks
• Authors: Masahiro Kaneko, Danushka Bollegala, Naoaki Okazaki
• Abstract summary: We study intrinsic relationship between task-agnostic and task-specific extrinsic social bias evaluation measures for Masked Language Models (MLMs) We find that there exists only a weak correlation between these two types of evaluation measures.
• Score: 33.044775876807826
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: We study the relationship between task-agnostic intrinsic and task-specific extrinsic social bias evaluation measures for Masked Language Models (MLMs), and find that there exists only a weak correlation between these two types of evaluation measures. Moreover, we find that MLMs debiased using different methods still re-learn social biases during fine-tuning on downstream tasks. We identify the social biases in both training instances as well as their assigned labels as reasons for the discrepancy between intrinsic and extrinsic bias evaluation measurements. Overall, our findings highlight the limitations of existing MLM bias evaluation measures and raise concerns on the deployment of MLMs in downstream applications using those measures.

Related papers

• Detecting Training Data of Large Language Models via Expectation Maximization [62.28028046993391]
  Membership inference attacks (MIAs) aim to determine whether a specific instance was part of a target model's training data. Applying MIAs to large language models (LLMs) presents unique challenges due to the massive scale of pre-training data and the ambiguous nature of membership. We introduce EM-MIA, a novel MIA method for LLMs that iteratively refines membership scores and prefix scores via an expectation-maximization algorithm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-10T03:31:16Z)
• Justice or Prejudice? Quantifying Biases in LLM-as-a-Judge [84.34545223897578]
  Despite their excellence in many domains, potential issues are under-explored, undermining their reliability and the scope of their utility. We identify 12 key potential biases and propose a new automated bias quantification framework-CALM- which quantifies and analyzes each type of bias in LLM-as-a-Judge. Our work highlights the need for stakeholders to address these issues and remind users to exercise caution in LLM-as-a-Judge applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T17:53:30Z)
• A Multi-LLM Debiasing Framework [85.17156744155915]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are powerful tools with the potential to benefit society immensely, yet, they have demonstrated biases that perpetuate societal inequalities. Recent research has shown a growing interest in multi-LLM approaches, which have been demonstrated to be effective in improving the quality of reasoning. We propose a novel multi-LLM debiasing framework aimed at reducing bias in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-20T20:24:50Z)
• Unboxing Occupational Bias: Grounded Debiasing of LLMs with U.S. Labor Data [9.90951705988724]
  Large Language Models (LLM) are prone to inheriting and amplifying societal biases. LLM bias can have far-reaching consequences, leading to unfair practices and exacerbating social inequalities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-20T23:54:26Z)
• CEB: Compositional Evaluation Benchmark for Fairness in Large Language Models [58.57987316300529]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed to handle various natural language processing (NLP) tasks. To evaluate the biases exhibited by LLMs, researchers have recently proposed a variety of datasets. We propose CEB, a Compositional Evaluation Benchmark that covers different types of bias across different social groups and tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-02T16:31:37Z)
• Measuring Social Biases in Masked Language Models by Proxy of Prediction Quality [0.0]
  Social political scientists often aim to discover and measure distinct biases from text data representations (embeddings) In this paper, we evaluate the social biases encoded by transformers trained with a masked language modeling objective. We find that proposed measures produce more accurate estimations of relative preference for biased sentences between transformers than others based on our methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-21T17:33:13Z)
• Measuring Implicit Bias in Explicitly Unbiased Large Language Models [14.279977138893846]
  Large language models (LLMs) can pass explicit social bias tests but still harbor implicit biases. We introduce two new measures of bias: LLM Implicit Bias, a prompt-based method for revealing implicit bias; and LLM Decision Bias, a strategy to detect subtle discrimination in decision-making tasks. Using these measures, we found pervasive stereotype biases mirroring those in society in 8 value-aligned models across 4 social categories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-06T15:59:23Z)
• Exploring the Jungle of Bias: Political Bias Attribution in Language Models via Dependency Analysis [86.49858739347412]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have sparked intense debate regarding the prevalence of bias in these models and its mitigation. We propose a prompt-based method for the extraction of confounding and mediating attributes which contribute to the decision process. We find that the observed disparate treatment can at least in part be attributed to confounding and mitigating attributes and model misalignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T00:02:25Z)
• Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey [73.87651986156006]
  We present a comprehensive survey of bias evaluation and mitigation techniques for large language models (LLMs) We first consolidate, formalize, and expand notions of social bias and fairness in natural language processing. We then unify the literature by proposing three intuitive, two for bias evaluation, and one for mitigation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-02T00:32:55Z)
• Constructing Holistic Measures for Social Biases in Masked Language Models [17.45153670825904]
  Masked Language Models (MLMs) have been successful in many natural language processing tasks. Real-world stereotype biases are likely to be reflected ins due to their learning from large text corpora. Two evaluation metrics, Kullback Leiblergence Score (KLDivS) and Jensen Shannon Divergence Score (JSDivS) are proposed to evaluate social biases ins.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-12T23:09:06Z)
• What do Bias Measures Measure? [41.36968251743058]
  Natural Language Processing models propagate social biases about protected attributes such as gender, race, and nationality. To create interventions and mitigate these biases and associated harms, it is vital to be able to detect and measure such biases. This work presents a comprehensive survey of existing bias measures in NLP as a function of the associated NLP tasks, metrics, datasets, and social biases and corresponding harms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-07T04:08:47Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.