SocialStigmaQA: A Benchmark to Uncover Stigma Amplification in Generative Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2312.07492v4
• Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2023 22:14:19 GMT
• Title: SocialStigmaQA: A Benchmark to Uncover Stigma Amplification in Generative Language Models
• Authors: Manish Nagireddy, Lamogha Chiazor, Moninder Singh, Ioana Baldini
• Abstract summary: We introduce a benchmark meant to capture the amplification of social bias, via stigmas, in generative language models. Our benchmark, SocialStigmaQA, contains roughly 10K prompts, with a variety of prompt styles, carefully constructed to test for both social bias and model robustness. We find that the proportion of socially biased output ranges from 45% to 59% across a variety of decoding strategies and prompting styles.
• Score: 8.211129045180636
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Current datasets for unwanted social bias auditing are limited to studying protected demographic features such as race and gender. In this work, we introduce a comprehensive benchmark that is meant to capture the amplification of social bias, via stigmas, in generative language models. Taking inspiration from social science research, we start with a documented list of 93 US-centric stigmas and curate a question-answering (QA) dataset which involves simple social situations. Our benchmark, SocialStigmaQA, contains roughly 10K prompts, with a variety of prompt styles, carefully constructed to systematically test for both social bias and model robustness. We present results for SocialStigmaQA with two open source generative language models and we find that the proportion of socially biased output ranges from 45% to 59% across a variety of decoding strategies and prompting styles. We demonstrate that the deliberate design of the templates in our benchmark (e.g., adding biasing text to the prompt or using different verbs that change the answer that indicates bias) impacts the model tendencies to generate socially biased output. Additionally, through manual evaluation, we discover problematic patterns in the generated chain-of-thought output that range from subtle bias to lack of reasoning. Warning: This paper contains examples of text which are toxic, biased, and potentially harmful.

Related papers

• 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)
• The Devil is in the Neurons: Interpreting and Mitigating Social Biases in Pre-trained Language Models [78.69526166193236]
  Pre-trained Language models (PLMs) have been acknowledged to contain harmful information, such as social biases. We propose sc Social Bias Neurons to accurately pinpoint units (i.e., neurons) in a language model that can be attributed to undesirable behavior, such as social bias. As measured by prior metrics from StereoSet, our model achieves a higher degree of fairness while maintaining language modeling ability with low cost.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-14T15:41:06Z)
• Social Bias Probing: Fairness Benchmarking for Language Models [38.180696489079985]
  This paper proposes a novel framework for probing language models for social biases by assessing disparate treatment. We curate SoFa, a large-scale benchmark designed to address the limitations of existing fairness collections. We show that biases within language models are more nuanced than acknowledged, indicating a broader scope of encoded biases than previously recognized.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T16:35:59Z)
• Probing Intersectional Biases in Vision-Language Models with Counterfactual Examples [5.870913541790421]
  We employ text-to-image diffusion models to produce counterfactual examples for probing intserctional social biases at scale. Our approach utilizes Stable Diffusion with cross attention control to produce sets of counterfactual image-text pairs. We conduct extensive experiments using our generated dataset which reveal the intersectional social biases present in state-of-the-art VLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-04T17:25:10Z)
• Evaluating Biased Attitude Associations of Language Models in an Intersectional Context [2.891314299138311]
  Language models are trained on large-scale corpora that embed implicit biases documented in psychology. We study biases related to age, education, gender, height, intelligence, literacy, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, social class, and weight. We find that language models exhibit the most biased attitudes against gender identity, social class, and sexual orientation signals in language.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-07T03:01:56Z)
• CBBQ: A Chinese Bias Benchmark Dataset Curated with Human-AI Collaboration for Large Language Models [52.25049362267279]
  We present a Chinese Bias Benchmark dataset that consists of over 100K questions jointly constructed by human experts and generative language models. The testing instances in the dataset are automatically derived from 3K+ high-quality templates manually authored with stringent quality control. Extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of the dataset in detecting model bias, with all 10 publicly available Chinese large language models exhibiting strong bias in certain categories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-28T14:14:44Z)
• BiasTestGPT: Using ChatGPT for Social Bias Testing of Language Models [73.29106813131818]
  bias testing is currently cumbersome since the test sentences are generated from a limited set of manual templates or need expensive crowd-sourcing. We propose using ChatGPT for the controllable generation of test sentences, given any arbitrary user-specified combination of social groups and attributes. We present an open-source comprehensive bias testing framework (BiasTestGPT), hosted on HuggingFace, that can be plugged into any open-source PLM for bias testing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-14T22:07:57Z)
• The Tail Wagging the Dog: Dataset Construction Biases of Social Bias Benchmarks [75.58692290694452]
  We compare social biases with non-social biases stemming from choices made during dataset construction that might not even be discernible to the human eye. We observe that these shallow modifications have a surprising effect on the resulting degree of bias across various models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-18T17:58:39Z)
• Few-shot Instruction Prompts for Pretrained Language Models to Detect Social Biases [55.45617404586874]
  We propose a few-shot instruction-based method for prompting pre-trained language models (LMs) We show that large LMs can detect different types of fine-grained biases with similar and sometimes superior accuracy to fine-tuned models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-15T04:19:52Z)
• BBQ: A Hand-Built Bias Benchmark for Question Answering [25.108222728383236]
  It is well documented that NLP models learn social biases present in the world, but little work has been done to show how these biases manifest in actual model outputs for applied tasks like question answering (QA) We introduce the Bias Benchmark for QA (BBQ), a dataset consisting of question-sets constructed by the authors that highlight textitattested social biases against people belonging to protected classes along nine different social dimensions relevant for U.S. English-speaking contexts. We find that models strongly rely on stereotypes when the context is ambiguous, meaning that the model's outputs consistently reproduce harmful biases in this setting
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-15T16:43:46Z)

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.