Unveiling Bias in Fairness Evaluations of Large Language Models: A Critical Literature Review of Music and Movie Recommendation Systems

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.04057v1
• Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2024 17:57:29 GMT
• Title: Unveiling Bias in Fairness Evaluations of Large Language Models: A Critical Literature Review of Music and Movie Recommendation Systems
• Authors: Chandan Kumar Sah, Dr. Lian Xiaoli, Muhammad Mirajul Islam
• Abstract summary: The rise of generative artificial intelligence, particularly Large Language Models (LLMs), has intensified the imperative to scrutinize fairness alongside accuracy. Recent studies have begun to investigate fairness evaluations for LLMs within domains such as recommendations. Yet, the degree to which current fairness evaluation frameworks account for personalization remains unclear.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: The rise of generative artificial intelligence, particularly Large Language Models (LLMs), has intensified the imperative to scrutinize fairness alongside accuracy. Recent studies have begun to investigate fairness evaluations for LLMs within domains such as recommendations. Given that personalization is an intrinsic aspect of recommendation systems, its incorporation into fairness assessments is paramount. Yet, the degree to which current fairness evaluation frameworks account for personalization remains unclear. Our comprehensive literature review aims to fill this gap by examining how existing frameworks handle fairness evaluations of LLMs, with a focus on the integration of personalization factors. Despite an exhaustive collection and analysis of relevant works, we discovered that most evaluations overlook personalization, a critical facet of recommendation systems, thereby inadvertently perpetuating unfair practices. Our findings shed light on this oversight and underscore the urgent need for more nuanced fairness evaluations that acknowledge personalization. Such improvements are vital for fostering equitable development within the AI community.

Related papers

• ReviewEval: An Evaluation Framework for AI-Generated Reviews [9.35023998408983]
  This research introduces a comprehensive evaluation framework for AI-generated reviews. It measures alignment with human evaluations, verifies factual accuracy, assesses analytical depth, and identifies actionable insights. Our framework establishes standardized metrics for evaluating AI-based review systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T12:22:11Z)
• Enabling Scalable Oversight via Self-Evolving Critic [59.861013614500024]
  SCRIT (Self-evolving CRITic) is a framework that enables genuine self-evolution of critique abilities. It self-improves by training on synthetic data, generated by a contrastive-based self-critic. It achieves up to a 10.3% improvement on critique-correction and error identification benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-10T05:51:52Z)
• Evaluating the Consistency of LLM Evaluators [9.53888551630878]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown potential as general evaluators. consistency as evaluators is still understudied, raising concerns about the reliability of LLM evaluators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-30T17:29:08Z)
• A Systematic Survey and Critical Review on Evaluating Large Language Models: Challenges, Limitations, and Recommendations [35.12731651234186]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently gained significant attention due to their remarkable capabilities. We systematically review the primary challenges and limitations causing these inconsistencies and unreliable evaluations. Based on our critical review, we present our perspectives and recommendations to ensure LLM evaluations are reproducible, reliable, and robust.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-04T17:15:37Z)
• Aligning with Human Judgement: The Role of Pairwise Preference in Large Language Model Evaluators [48.54465599914978]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated promising capabilities as automatic evaluators in assessing the quality of generated natural language. LLMs still exhibit biases in evaluation and often struggle to generate coherent evaluations that align with human assessments. We introduce Pairwise-preference Search (PAIRS), an uncertainty-guided search-based rank aggregation method that employs LLMs to conduct pairwise comparisons locally and efficiently ranks candidate texts globally.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-25T17:11:28Z)
• HD-Eval: Aligning Large Language Model Evaluators Through Hierarchical Criteria Decomposition [92.17397504834825]
  HD-Eval is a framework that iteratively aligns large language models evaluators with human preference. HD-Eval inherits the essence from the evaluation mindset of human experts and enhances the alignment of LLM-based evaluators. Extensive experiments on three evaluation domains demonstrate the superiority of HD-Eval in further aligning state-of-the-art evaluators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-24T08:01:32Z)
• Exploring the Reliability of Large Language Models as Customized Evaluators for Diverse NLP Tasks [65.69651759036535]
  We analyze whether large language models (LLMs) can serve as reliable alternatives to humans. This paper explores both conventional tasks (e.g., story generation) and alignment tasks (e.g., math reasoning) We find that LLM evaluators can generate unnecessary criteria or omit crucial criteria, resulting in a slight deviation from the experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T17:04:35Z)
• Hierarchical Evaluation Framework: Best Practices for Human Evaluation [17.91641890651225]
  The absence of widely accepted human evaluation metrics in NLP hampers fair comparisons among different systems and the establishment of universal assessment standards. We develop our own hierarchical evaluation framework to provide a more comprehensive representation of the NLP system's performance. In future work, we will investigate the potential time-saving benefits of our proposed framework for evaluators assessing NLP systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-03T09:46:02Z)
• Calibrating LLM-Based Evaluator [92.17397504834825]
  We propose AutoCalibrate, a multi-stage, gradient-free approach to calibrate and align an LLM-based evaluator toward human preference. Instead of explicitly modeling human preferences, we first implicitly encompass them within a set of human labels. Our experiments on multiple text quality evaluation datasets illustrate a significant improvement in correlation with expert evaluation through calibration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-23T08:46:11Z)
• FLASK: Fine-grained Language Model Evaluation based on Alignment Skill Sets [69.91340332545094]
  We introduce FLASK, a fine-grained evaluation protocol for both human-based and model-based evaluation. We experimentally observe that the fine-graininess of evaluation is crucial for attaining a holistic view of model performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-20T14:56:35Z)

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.