How Robust are LLMs to In-Context Majority Label Bias?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2312.16549v1
• Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2023 12:20:12 GMT
• Title: How Robust are LLMs to In-Context Majority Label Bias?
• Authors: Karan Gupta, Sumegh Roychowdhury, Siva Rajesh Kasa, Santhosh Kumar Kasa, Anish Bhanushali, Nikhil Pattisapu, Prasanna Srinivasa Murthy
• Abstract summary: We study the robustness of in-context learning in Large Language Models (LLMs) to shifts that occur due to majority label bias. Our findings also highlight the impact of model size and the richness of instructional prompts contributing towards model robustness.
• Score: 3.3577727874594654
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: In the In-Context Learning (ICL) setup, various forms of label biases can manifest. One such manifestation is majority label bias, which arises when the distribution of labeled examples in the in-context samples is skewed towards one or more specific classes making Large Language Models (LLMs) more prone to predict those labels. Such discrepancies can arise from various factors, including logistical constraints, inherent biases in data collection methods, limited access to diverse data sources, etc. which are unavoidable in a real-world industry setup. In this work, we study the robustness of in-context learning in LLMs to shifts that occur due to majority label bias within the purview of text classification tasks. Prior works have shown that in-context learning with LLMs is susceptible to such biases. In our study, we go one level deeper and show that the robustness boundary varies widely for different models and tasks, with certain LLMs being highly robust (~90%) to majority label bias. Additionally, our findings also highlight the impact of model size and the richness of instructional prompts contributing towards model robustness. We restrict our study to only publicly available open-source models to ensure transparency and reproducibility.

Related papers

• Bias Similarity Across Large Language Models [32.0365189539138]
  Bias in machine learning models has been a chronic problem. We take a comprehensive look at ten open- and closed-source Large Language Models. We measure functional similarity to understand how biases manifest across models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-15T19:21:14Z)
• Zero-to-Strong Generalization: Eliciting Strong Capabilities of Large Language Models Iteratively without Gold Labels [75.77877889764073]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance through supervised fine-tuning or in-context learning using gold labels. This study explores whether solely utilizing unlabeled data can elicit strong model capabilities. We propose a new paradigm termed zero-to-strong generalization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-19T02:59:44Z)
• Unboxing Occupational Bias: Grounded Debiasing of LLMs with U.S. Labor Data [9.90951705988724]
  Large Language Models (LLM) are prone to inheriting and amplifying societal biases. LLM bias can have far-reaching consequences, leading to unfair practices and exacerbating social inequalities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-20T23:54:26Z)
• Examining the Influence of Political Bias on Large Language Model Performance in Stance Classification [5.8229466650067065]
  We investigate whether large language models (LLMs) exhibit a tendency to more accurately classify politically-charged stances. Our findings reveal a statistically significant difference in the performance of LLMs across various politically oriented stance classification tasks. LLMs have poorer stance classification accuracy when there is greater ambiguity in the target the statement is directed towards.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-25T01:11:38Z)
• Uncertainty Aware Learning for Language Model Alignment [97.36361196793929]
  We propose uncertainty-aware learning (UAL) to improve the model alignment of different task scenarios. We implement UAL in a simple fashion -- adaptively setting the label smoothing value of training according to the uncertainty of individual samples. Experiments on widely used benchmarks demonstrate that our UAL significantly and consistently outperforms standard supervised fine-tuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-07T11:37:45Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Improving Contrastive Learning on Imbalanced Seed Data via Open-World Sampling [96.8742582581744]
  We present an open-world unlabeled data sampling framework called Model-Aware K-center (MAK) MAK follows three simple principles: tailness, proximity, and diversity. We demonstrate that MAK can consistently improve both the overall representation quality and the class balancedness of the learned features.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-11-01T15:09:41Z)
• Creating Training Sets via Weak Indirect Supervision [66.77795318313372]
  Weak Supervision (WS) frameworks synthesize training labels from multiple potentially noisy supervision sources. We formulate Weak Indirect Supervision (WIS), a new research problem for automatically synthesizing training labels. We develop a probabilistic modeling approach, PLRM, which uses user-provided label relations to model and leverage indirect supervision sources.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-07T14:09:35Z)

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.