This Prompt is Measuring : Evaluating Bias Evaluation in Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.12757v1
• Date: Mon, 22 May 2023 06:28:48 GMT
• Title: This Prompt is Measuring <MASK>: Evaluating Bias Evaluation in Language Models
• Authors: Seraphina Goldfarb-Tarrant, Eddie Ungless, Esma Balkir, Su Lin Blodgett
• Abstract summary: We analyse the body of work that uses prompts and templates to assess bias in language models. We draw on a measurement modelling framework to create a taxonomy of attributes that capture what a bias test aims to measure. Our analysis illuminates the scope of possible bias types the field is able to measure, and reveals types that are as yet under-researched.
• Score: 12.214260053244871
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Bias research in NLP seeks to analyse models for social biases, thus helping NLP practitioners uncover, measure, and mitigate social harms. We analyse the body of work that uses prompts and templates to assess bias in language models. We draw on a measurement modelling framework to create a taxonomy of attributes that capture what a bias test aims to measure and how that measurement is carried out. By applying this taxonomy to 90 bias tests, we illustrate qualitatively and quantitatively that core aspects of bias test conceptualisations and operationalisations are frequently unstated or ambiguous, carry implicit assumptions, or be mismatched. Our analysis illuminates the scope of possible bias types the field is able to measure, and reveals types that are as yet under-researched. We offer guidance to enable the community to explore a wider section of the possible bias space, and to better close the gap between desired outcomes and experimental design, both for bias and for evaluating language models more broadly.

Related papers

• Covert Bias: The Severity of Social Views' Unalignment in Language Models Towards Implicit and Explicit Opinion [0.40964539027092917]
  We evaluate the severity of bias toward a view by using a biased model in edge cases of excessive bias scenarios. Our findings reveal a discrepancy in LLM performance in identifying implicit and explicit opinions, with a general tendency of bias toward explicit opinions of opposing stances. The direct, incautious responses of the unaligned models suggest a need for further refinement of decisiveness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-15T15:23:00Z)
• VLBiasBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating Bias in Large Vision-Language Model [72.13121434085116]
  VLBiasBench is a benchmark aimed at evaluating biases in Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) We construct a dataset encompassing nine distinct categories of social biases, including age, disability status, gender, nationality, physical appearance, race, religion, profession, social economic status and two intersectional bias categories (race x gender, and race x social economic status) We conduct extensive evaluations on 15 open-source models as well as one advanced closed-source model, providing some new insights into the biases revealing from these models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T10:56:59Z)
• Projective Methods for Mitigating Gender Bias in Pre-trained Language Models [10.418595661963062]
  Projective methods are fast to implement, use a small number of saved parameters, and make no updates to the existing model parameters. We find that projective methods can be effective at both intrinsic bias and downstream bias mitigation, but that the two outcomes are not necessarily correlated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-27T17:49:31Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Gender Biases in Automatic Evaluation Metrics for Image Captioning [87.15170977240643]
  We conduct a systematic study of gender biases in model-based evaluation metrics for image captioning tasks. We demonstrate the negative consequences of using these biased metrics, including the inability to differentiate between biased and unbiased generations. We present a simple and effective way to mitigate the metric bias without hurting the correlations with human judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T04:27:40Z)
• "I'm sorry to hear that": Finding New Biases in Language Models with a Holistic Descriptor Dataset [12.000335510088648]
  We present a new, more inclusive bias measurement dataset, HolisticBias, which includes nearly 600 descriptor terms across 13 different demographic axes. HolisticBias was assembled in a participatory process including experts and community members with lived experience of these terms. We demonstrate that HolisticBias is effective at measuring previously undetectable biases in token likelihoods from language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-18T20:37:25Z)
• General Greedy De-bias Learning [163.65789778416172]
  We propose a General Greedy De-bias learning framework (GGD), which greedily trains the biased models and the base model like gradient descent in functional space. GGD can learn a more robust base model under the settings of both task-specific biased models with prior knowledge and self-ensemble biased model without prior knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-20T14:47:32Z)
• Measuring Fairness with Biased Rulers: A Survey on Quantifying Biases in Pretrained Language Models [2.567384209291337]
  An increasing awareness of biased patterns in natural language processing resources has motivated many metrics to quantify bias' and fairness' We survey the existing literature on fairness metrics for pretrained language models and experimentally evaluate compatibility. We find that many metrics are not compatible and highly depend on (i) templates, (ii) attribute and target seeds and (iii) the choice of embeddings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-14T15:04:56Z)
• Intrinsic Bias Metrics Do Not Correlate with Application Bias [12.588713044749179]
  This research examines whether easy-to-measure intrinsic metrics correlate well to real world extrinsic metrics. We measure both intrinsic and extrinsic bias across hundreds of trained models covering different tasks and experimental conditions. We advise that efforts to debias embedding spaces be always also paired with measurement of downstream model bias, and suggest that that community increase effort into making downstream measurement more feasible via creation of additional challenge sets and annotated test data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-31T18:59:44Z)
• 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)

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.