Your Large Language Model is Secretly a Fairness Proponent and You Should Prompt it Like One

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.12150v1
• Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 14:02:22 GMT
• Title: Your Large Language Model is Secretly a Fairness Proponent and You Should Prompt it Like One
• Authors: Tianlin Li, Xiaoyu Zhang, Chao Du, Tianyu Pang, Qian Liu, Qing Guo, Chao Shen, Yang Liu
• Abstract summary: We develop FairThinking, a pipeline designed to automatically generate roles that enable LLMs to articulate diverse perspectives for fair expressions. To evaluate FairThinking, we create a dataset with a thousand items covering three fairness-related topics and conduct experiments on GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Llama2, and Mistral.
• Score: 43.37522760105383
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The widespread adoption of large language models (LLMs) underscores the urgent need to ensure their fairness. However, LLMs frequently present dominant viewpoints while ignoring alternative perspectives from minority parties, resulting in potential biases. We hypothesize that these fairness-violating behaviors occur because LLMs express their viewpoints using a human personality that represents the majority of training data. In response to this, we validate that prompting LLMs with specific roles can allow LLMs to express diverse viewpoints. Building on this insight and observation, we develop FairThinking, a pipeline designed to automatically generate roles that enable LLMs to articulate diverse perspectives for fair expressions. To evaluate FairThinking, we create a dataset with a thousand items covering three fairness-related topics and conduct experiments on GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Llama2, and Mistral to demonstrate its superior performance.

Related papers

• FairMT-Bench: Benchmarking Fairness for Multi-turn Dialogue in Conversational LLMs [8.37667737406383]
  We propose a fairness benchmark for large language model (LLM)-based chatbots in multi-turn dialogue scenarios, textbfFairMT-Bench. To ensure coverage of diverse bias types and attributes, we employ our template to construct a multi-turn dialogue dataset, textttFairMT-10K. Experiments and analyses on textttFairMT-10K reveal that in multi-turn dialogue scenarios, current LLMs are more likely to generate biased responses, and there is significant variation in performance across different tasks and models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-25T06:06:31Z)
• Justice or Prejudice? Quantifying Biases in LLM-as-a-Judge [84.34545223897578]
  Despite their excellence in many domains, potential issues are under-explored, undermining their reliability and the scope of their utility. We identify 12 key potential biases and propose a new automated bias quantification framework-CALM- which quantifies and analyzes each type of bias in LLM-as-a-Judge. Our work highlights the need for stakeholders to address these issues and remind users to exercise caution in LLM-as-a-Judge applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T17:53:30Z)
• Fairness in Large Language Models in Three Hours [2.443957114877221]
  This tutorial provides a systematic overview of recent advances in the literature concerning large language models. The concept of fairness in LLMs is then explored, summarizing the strategies for evaluating bias and the algorithms designed to promote fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-02T03:44:14Z)
• Few-Shot Fairness: Unveiling LLM's Potential for Fairness-Aware Classification [7.696798306913988]
  We introduce a framework outlining fairness regulations aligned with various fairness definitions. We explore the configuration for in-context learning and the procedure for selecting in-context demonstrations using RAG. Experiments conducted with different LLMs indicate that GPT-4 delivers superior results in terms of both accuracy and fairness compared to other models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-28T17:29:27Z)
• 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)
• DELL: Generating Reactions and Explanations for LLM-Based Misinformation Detection [50.805599761583444]
  Large language models are limited by challenges in factuality and hallucinations to be directly employed off-the-shelf for judging the veracity of news articles. We propose Dell that identifies three key stages in misinformation detection where LLMs could be incorporated as part of the pipeline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-16T03:24:56Z)
• A Group Fairness Lens for Large Language Models [34.0579082699443]
  Large language models can perpetuate biases and unfairness when deployed in social media contexts. We propose evaluating LLM biases from a group fairness lens using a novel hierarchical schema characterizing diverse social groups. We pioneer a novel chain-of-thought method GF-Think to mitigate biases of LLMs from a group fairness perspective.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-24T13:25:15Z)
• Fair Abstractive Summarization of Diverse Perspectives [103.08300574459783]
  A fair summary should provide a comprehensive coverage of diverse perspectives without underrepresenting certain groups. We first formally define fairness in abstractive summarization as not underrepresenting perspectives of any groups of people. We propose four reference-free automatic metrics by measuring the differences between target and source perspectives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T03:38:55Z)
• Are Large Language Models Reliable Judges? A Study on the Factuality Evaluation Capabilities of LLMs [8.526956860672698]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained immense attention due to their notable emergent capabilities. This study investigates the potential of LLMs as reliable assessors of factual consistency in summaries generated by text-generation models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-01T17:42:45Z)
• Are Large Language Models Really Robust to Word-Level Perturbations? [68.60618778027694]
  We propose a novel rational evaluation approach that leverages pre-trained reward models as diagnostic tools. Longer conversations manifest the comprehensive grasp of language models in terms of their proficiency in understanding questions. Our results demonstrate that LLMs frequently exhibit vulnerability to word-level perturbations that are commonplace in daily language usage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-20T09:23:46Z)

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.