Investigating Subtler Biases in LLMs: Ageism, Beauty, Institutional, and Nationality Bias in Generative Models
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2309.08902v3
- Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 01:02:31 GMT
- Title: Investigating Subtler Biases in LLMs: Ageism, Beauty, Institutional, and Nationality Bias in Generative Models
- Authors: Mahammed Kamruzzaman, Md. Minul Islam Shovon, Gene Louis Kim,
- Abstract summary: This paper investigates bias along less-studied but still consequential, dimensions, such as age and beauty.
We ask whether LLMs hold wide-reaching biases of positive or negative sentiment for specific social groups similar to the "what is beautiful is good" bias found in people in experimental psychology.
- Score: 0.0
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: LLMs are increasingly powerful and widely used to assist users in a variety of tasks. This use risks the introduction of LLM biases to consequential decisions such as job hiring, human performance evaluation, and criminal sentencing. Bias in NLP systems along the lines of gender and ethnicity has been widely studied, especially for specific stereotypes (e.g., Asians are good at math). In this paper, we investigate bias along less-studied but still consequential, dimensions, such as age and beauty, measuring subtler correlated decisions that LLMs make between social groups and unrelated positive and negative attributes. We ask whether LLMs hold wide-reaching biases of positive or negative sentiment for specific social groups similar to the "what is beautiful is good" bias found in people in experimental psychology. We introduce a template-generated dataset of sentence completion tasks that asks the model to select the most appropriate attribute to complete an evaluative statement about a person described as a member of a specific social group. We also reverse the completion task to select the social group based on an attribute. We report the correlations that we find for 4 cutting-edge LLMs. This dataset can be used as a benchmark to evaluate progress in more generalized biases and the templating technique can be used to expand the benchmark with minimal additional human annotation.
Related papers
- Social Bias Evaluation for Large Language Models Requires Prompt Variations [38.91306092184724]
Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit considerable social biases.
This paper investigates the sensitivity of LLMs when changing prompt variations.
We show that LLMs have tradeoffs between performance and social bias caused by the prompts.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-07-03T14:12:04Z) - 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) - 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) - Exploring Value Biases: How LLMs Deviate Towards the Ideal [57.99044181599786]
Large-Language-Models (LLMs) are deployed in a wide range of applications, and their response has an increasing social impact.
We show that value bias is strong in LLMs across different categories, similar to the results found in human studies.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-16T18:28:43Z) - Large Language Models are Geographically Biased [51.37609528538606]
We study what Large Language Models (LLMs) know about the world we live in through the lens of geography.
We show various problematic geographic biases, which we define as systemic errors in geospatial predictions.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-05T02:32:09Z) - 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) - ROBBIE: Robust Bias Evaluation of Large Generative Language Models [27.864027322486375]
Different prompt-based datasets can be used to measure social bias across multiple text domains and demographic axes.
We compare 6 different prompt-based bias and toxicity metrics across 12 demographic axes and 5 families of generative LLMs.
We conduct a comprehensive study of how well 3 bias/toxicity mitigation techniques perform across our suite of measurements.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-29T23:03:04Z) - Confronting LLMs with Traditional ML: Rethinking the Fairness of Large Language Models in Tabular Classifications [23.963586791210414]
We show that large language models (LLMs) tend to inherit social biases from their training data which significantly impact their fairness in classification tasks.
This observation emphasizes that the social biases are inherent within the LLMs themselves and inherited from their pretraining corpus.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-23T06:31:28Z) - 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 bias and stereotypes in Large Language Models [0.6882042556551611]
This paper investigates Large Language Models' behavior with respect to gender stereotypes.
We use a simple paradigm to test the presence of gender bias, building on but differing from WinoBias.
Our contributions in this paper are as follows: (a) LLMs are 3-6 times more likely to choose an occupation that stereotypically aligns with a person's gender; (b) these choices align with people's perceptions better than with the ground truth as reflected in official job statistics; (d) LLMs ignore crucial ambiguities in sentence structure 95% of the time in our study items, but when explicitly prompted, they recognize
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-08-28T22:32:05Z) - The Unequal Opportunities of Large Language Models: Revealing
Demographic Bias through Job Recommendations [5.898806397015801]
We propose a simple method for analyzing and comparing demographic bias in Large Language Models (LLMs)
We demonstrate the effectiveness of our method by measuring intersectional biases within ChatGPT and LLaMA.
We identify distinct biases in both models toward various demographic identities, such as both models consistently suggesting low-paying jobs for Mexican workers.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-08-03T21:12:54Z)
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.