Bias in Language Models: Beyond Trick Tests and Toward RUTEd Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.12649v1
• Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 01:49:15 GMT
• Title: Bias in Language Models: Beyond Trick Tests and Toward RUTEd Evaluation
• Authors: Kristian Lum, Jacy Reese Anthis, Chirag Nagpal, Alexander D'Amour
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 55.66090768926881
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Bias benchmarks are a popular method for studying the negative impacts of bias in LLMs, yet there has been little empirical investigation of whether these benchmarks are actually indicative of how real world harm may manifest in the real world. In this work, we study the correspondence between such decontextualized "trick tests" and evaluations that are more grounded in Realistic Use and Tangible {Effects (i.e. RUTEd evaluations). We explore this correlation in the context of gender-occupation bias--a popular genre of bias evaluation. We compare three de-contextualized evaluations adapted from the current literature to three analogous RUTEd evaluations applied to long-form content generation. We conduct each evaluation for seven instruction-tuned LLMs. For the RUTEd evaluations, we conduct repeated trials of three text generation tasks: children's bedtime stories, user personas, and English language learning exercises. We found no correspondence between trick tests and RUTEd evaluations. Specifically, selecting the least biased model based on the de-contextualized results coincides with selecting the model with the best performance on RUTEd evaluations only as often as random chance. We conclude that evaluations that are not based in realistic use are likely insufficient to mitigate and assess bias and real-world harms.

Related papers

• Rethinking Relation Extraction: Beyond Shortcuts to Generalization with a Debiased Benchmark [53.876493664396506]
  Benchmarks are crucial for evaluating machine learning algorithm performance, facilitating comparison and identifying superior solutions. This paper addresses the issue of entity bias in relation extraction tasks, where models tend to rely on entity mentions rather than context. We propose a debiased relation extraction benchmark DREB that breaks the pseudo-correlation between entity mentions and relation types through entity replacement. To establish a new baseline on DREB, we introduce MixDebias, a debiasing method combining data-level and model training-level techniques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-02T17:01:06Z)
• Different Bias Under Different Criteria: Assessing Bias in LLMs with a Fact-Based Approach [7.969162168078149]
  Large language models (LLMs) often reflect real-world biases, leading to efforts to mitigate these effects. We introduce a novel metric to assess bias using fact-based criteria and real-world statistics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-26T11:32:43Z)
• Assessing Bias in Metric Models for LLM Open-Ended Generation Bias Benchmarks [3.973239756262797]
  This study examines such biases in open-generation benchmarks like BOLD and SAGED. Results reveal unequal treatment of demographic descriptors, calling for more robust bias metric models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T20:08:40Z)
• COBIAS: Contextual Reliability in Bias Assessment [14.594920595573038]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) often inherit biases from the web data they are trained on, which contains stereotypes and prejudices. Current methods for evaluating and mitigating these biases rely on bias-benchmark datasets. We introduce a contextual reliability framework, which evaluates model robustness to biased statements by considering the various contexts in which they may appear.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-22T10:46:11Z)
• GPTBIAS: A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluating Bias in Large Language Models [83.30078426829627]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-11T12:02:14Z)
• An Offline Metric for the Debiasedness of Click Models [52.25681483524383]
  Click models are a common method for extracting information from user clicks. Recent work shows that the current evaluation practices in the community fail to guarantee that a well-performing click model generalizes well to downstream tasks. We introduce the concept of debiasedness in click modeling and derive a metric for measuring it.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-19T10:59:34Z)
• The SAME score: Improved cosine based bias score for word embeddings [49.75878234192369]
  We introduce SAME, a novel bias score for semantic bias in embeddings. We show that SAME is capable of measuring semantic bias and identify potential causes for social bias in downstream tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-28T09:28:13Z)
• Measuring Fairness with Biased Rulers: A Survey on Quantifying Biases in Pretrained Language Models [2.567384209291337]
  An increasing awareness of biased patterns in natural language processing resources has motivated many metrics to quantify bias' and fairness' We survey the existing literature on fairness metrics for pretrained language models and experimentally evaluate compatibility. We find that many metrics are not compatible and highly depend on (i) templates, (ii) attribute and target seeds and (iii) the choice of embeddings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-14T15:04:56Z)
• LOGAN: Local Group Bias Detection by Clustering [86.38331353310114]
  We argue that evaluating bias at the corpus level is not enough for understanding how biases are embedded in a model. We propose LOGAN, a new bias detection technique based on clustering. Experiments on toxicity classification and object classification tasks show that LOGAN identifies bias in a local region.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-06T16:42:51Z)

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.