GPTBIAS: A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluating Bias in Large Language
Models
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2312.06315v1
- Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2023 12:02:14 GMT
- Title: GPTBIAS: A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluating Bias in Large Language
Models
- Authors: Jiaxu Zhao, Meng Fang, Shirui Pan, Wenpeng Yin, Mykola Pechenizkiy
- Abstract summary: 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.
- Score: 83.30078426829627
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: Warning: This paper contains content that may be offensive or upsetting.
There has been a significant increase in the usage of large language models
(LLMs) in various applications, both in their original form and through
fine-tuned adaptations. As a result, LLMs have gained popularity and are being
widely adopted by a large user community. However, one of the concerns with
LLMs is the potential generation of socially biased content. The existing
evaluation methods have many constraints, and their results exhibit a limited
degree of interpretability. In this work, we propose a bias evaluation
framework named GPTBIAS that leverages the high performance of LLMs (e.g.,
GPT-4 \cite{openai2023gpt4}) to assess bias in models. We also introduce
prompts called Bias Attack Instructions, which are specifically designed for
evaluating model bias. To enhance the credibility and interpretability of bias
evaluation, our framework not only provides a bias score but also offers
detailed information, including bias types, affected demographics, keywords,
reasons behind the biases, and suggestions for improvement. We conduct
extensive experiments to demonstrate the effectiveness and usability of our
bias evaluation framework.
Related papers
- BiasDPO: Mitigating Bias in Language Models through Direct Preference Optimization [0.0]
Large Language Models (LLMs) have become pivotal in advancing natural language processing, yet their potential to perpetuate biases poses significant concerns.
This paper introduces a new framework employing Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) to mitigate gender, racial, and religious biases in English text.
By developing a loss function that favors less biased over biased completions, our approach cultivates a preference for respectful and non-discriminatory language.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-07-18T22:32:20Z) - Evaluating Nuanced Bias in Large Language Model Free Response Answers [8.775925011558995]
We identify several kinds of nuanced bias in free text that cannot be identified by multiple choice tests.
We present a semi-automated pipeline for detecting these types of bias by first eliminating answers that can be automatically classified as unbiased.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-07-11T19:58:13Z) - 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) - JobFair: A Framework for Benchmarking Gender Hiring Bias in Large Language Models [12.12628747941818]
This paper presents a novel framework for benchmarking hierarchical gender hiring bias in Large Language Models (LLMs) for resume scoring.
We introduce a framework using a real, anonymized resume dataset from the Healthcare, Finance, and Construction industries.
Second, we propose novel statistical and computational hiring bias metrics based on a counterfactual approach.
Third, we analyze hiring biases in ten state-of-the-art LLMs.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-17T09:15:57Z) - BEADs: Bias Evaluation Across Domains [9.19312529999677]
Large language models (LLMs) can inherit and perpetuate biases from their training data.
We introduce the Bias Evaluations Across Domains (BEADs) dataset to support a wide range of NLP tasks.
Our empirical analysis shows that BEADs is effective in detecting and reducing biases across different language models.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-06T16:18:30Z) - Take Care of Your Prompt Bias! Investigating and Mitigating Prompt Bias in Factual Knowledge Extraction [56.17020601803071]
Recent research shows that pre-trained language models (PLMs) suffer from "prompt bias" in factual knowledge extraction.
This paper aims to improve the reliability of existing benchmarks by thoroughly investigating and mitigating prompt bias.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-15T02:04:35Z) - Likelihood-based Mitigation of Evaluation Bias in Large Language Models [39.77680080235204]
Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used to evaluate natural language generation tasks as automated metrics.
It is possible that there might be a likelihood bias if LLMs are used for evaluation.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-25T04:52:02Z) - Bias in Language Models: Beyond Trick Tests and Toward RUTEd Evaluation [55.66090768926881]
We study the correspondence between decontextualized "trick tests" and evaluations that are more grounded in Realistic Use and Tangible Effects.
We compare three de-contextualized evaluations adapted from the current literature to three analogous RUTEd evaluations applied to long-form content generation.
We found no correspondence between trick tests and RUTEd evaluations.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-20T01:49:15Z) - Towards Debiasing NLU Models from Unknown Biases [70.31427277842239]
NLU models often exploit biases to achieve high dataset-specific performance without properly learning the intended task.
We present a self-debiasing framework that prevents models from mainly utilizing biases without knowing them in advance.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-09-25T15:49:39Z)
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.