HERB: Measuring Hierarchical Regional Bias in Pre-trained Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2211.02882v1
• Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2022 11:30:57 GMT
• Title: HERB: Measuring Hierarchical Regional Bias in Pre-trained Language Models
• Authors: Yizhi Li, Ge Zhang, Bohao Yang, Chenghua Lin, Shi Wang, Anton Ragni, Jie Fu
• Abstract summary: Regional bias in language models (LMs) is a long-standing global discrimination problem. This paper bridges the gap by analysing the regional bias learned by the pre-trained language models. We propose a HiErarchical Regional Bias evaluation method (HERB) to quantify the bias in pre-trained LMs.
• Score: 33.0987914452712
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Fairness has become a trending topic in natural language processing (NLP), which addresses biases targeting certain social groups such as genders and religions. However, regional bias in language models (LMs), a long-standing global discrimination problem, still remains unexplored. This paper bridges the gap by analysing the regional bias learned by the pre-trained language models that are broadly used in NLP tasks. In addition to verifying the existence of regional bias in LMs, we find that the biases on regional groups can be strongly influenced by the geographical clustering of the groups. We accordingly propose a HiErarchical Regional Bias evaluation method (HERB) utilising the information from the sub-region clusters to quantify the bias in pre-trained LMs. Experiments show that our hierarchical metric can effectively evaluate the regional bias with respect to comprehensive topics and measure the potential regional bias that can be propagated to downstream tasks. Our codes are available at https://github.com/Bernard-Yang/HERB.

Related papers

• LIBRA: Measuring Bias of Large Language Model from a Local Context [9.612845616659776]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly advanced natural language processing applications. Yet their widespread use raises concerns regarding inherent biases that may reduce utility or harm for particular social groups. This research addresses these limitations with a Local Integrated Bias Recognition and Assessment Framework (LIBRA) for measuring bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-02T04:24:57Z)
• Towards Resource Efficient and Interpretable Bias Mitigation in Large Language Models [1.787433808079955]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been observed to perpetuate unwanted biases in training data. In this paper, we mitigate bias by leveraging small biased and anti-biased expert models to obtain a debiasing signal. Experiments on mitigating gender, race, and religion biases show a reduction in bias on several local and global bias metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-02T16:56:08Z)
• Promoting Equality in Large Language Models: Identifying and Mitigating the Implicit Bias based on Bayesian Theory [29.201402717025335]
  Large language models (LLMs) are trained on extensive text corpora, which inevitably include biased information. We have formally defined the implicit bias problem and developed an innovative framework for bias removal based on Bayesian theory.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-20T07:40:12Z)
• Towards Region-aware Bias Evaluation Metrics [26.91545185271231]
  We identify topical differences in gender bias across different regions and propose a region-aware bottom-up approach for bias assessment. Our proposed approach uses gender-aligned topics for a given region and identifies gender bias dimensions in the form of topic pairs. Several of our proposed bias topic pairs are on par with human perception of gender biases in these regions in comparison to the existing ones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-23T16:26:27Z)
• Bias in Language Models: Beyond Trick Tests and Toward RUTEd Evaluation [49.3814117521631]
  Standard benchmarks of bias and fairness in large language models (LLMs) measure the association between social attributes implied in user prompts and short responses. We develop analogous RUTEd evaluations from three contexts of real-world use. We find that standard bias metrics have no significant correlation with the more realistic bias metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T01:49:15Z)
• GPTBIAS: A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluating Bias in Large Language Models [83.30078426829627]
  Large language models (LLMs) have gained popularity and are being widely adopted by a large user community. The existing evaluation methods have many constraints, and their results exhibit a limited degree of interpretability. We propose a bias evaluation framework named GPTBIAS that leverages the high performance of LLMs to assess bias in models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-11T12:02:14Z)
• Balancing Biases and Preserving Privacy on Balanced Faces in the Wild [50.915684171879036]
  There are demographic biases present in current facial recognition (FR) models. We introduce our Balanced Faces in the Wild dataset to measure these biases across different ethnic and gender subgroups. We find that relying on a single score threshold to differentiate between genuine and imposters sample pairs leads to suboptimal results. We propose a novel domain adaptation learning scheme that uses facial features extracted from state-of-the-art neural networks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-16T15:05:49Z)
• LOGAN: Local Group Bias Detection by Clustering [86.38331353310114]
  We argue that evaluating bias at the corpus level is not enough for understanding how biases are embedded in a model. We propose LOGAN, a new bias detection technique based on clustering. Experiments on toxicity classification and object classification tasks show that LOGAN identifies bias in a local region.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-06T16:42:51Z)
• Towards Controllable Biases in Language Generation [87.89632038677912]
  We develop a method to induce societal biases in generated text when input prompts contain mentions of specific demographic groups. We analyze two scenarios: 1) inducing negative biases for one demographic and positive biases for another demographic, and 2) equalizing biases between demographics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-01T08:25:11Z)

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.