Prejudice and Volatility: A Statistical Framework for Measuring Social Discrimination in Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.15481v4
• Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 20:02:10 GMT
• Title: Prejudice and Volatility: A Statistical Framework for Measuring Social Discrimination in Large Language Models
• Authors: Y Liu, K Yang, Z Qi, X Liu, Y Yu, C Zhai,
• Abstract summary: This study investigates why and how inconsistency in the generation of Large Language Models (LLMs) might induce or exacerbate societal injustice. We formulate the Prejudice-Volatility Framework (PVF) that precisely defines behavioral metrics for assessing LLMs. We mathematically dissect the aggregated discrimination risk of LLMs into prejudice risk, originating from their system bias, and volatility risk.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: This study investigates why and how inconsistency in the generation of Large Language Models (LLMs) might induce or exacerbate societal injustice. For instance, LLMs frequently exhibit contrasting gender stereotypes regarding the same career depending on varied contexts, highlighting the arguably harmful unpredictability of LLMs' behavioral patterns. To augment the existing discrimination assessment with the capability to account for variation in LLM generation, we formulate the Prejudice-Volatility Framework (PVF) that precisely defines behavioral metrics for assessing LLMs, which delineate the probability distribution of LLMs' stereotypes from the perspective of token prediction probability. Specifically, we employ a data-mining approach to approximate the possible applied contexts of LLMs and devise statistical metrics to evaluate the corresponding contextualized societal discrimination risk. Further, we mathematically dissect the aggregated discrimination risk of LLMs into prejudice risk, originating from their system bias, and volatility risk, stemming from their generation inconsistency. While initially intended for assessing discrimination in LLMs, our proposed PVF facilitates the comprehensive and flexible measurement of any inductive biases, including knowledge alongside prejudice, across various modality models. We apply PVF to 12 most commonly adopted LLMs and compare their risk levels. Our findings reveal that: i) prejudice risk is the primary cause of discrimination risk in LLMs, indicating that inherent biases in these models lead to stereotypical outputs; ii) most LLMs exhibit significant pro-male stereotypes across nearly all careers; iii) alignment with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback lowers discrimination by reducing prejudice, but increases volatility; iv) discrimination risk in LLMs correlates with socio-economic factors like profession salaries.

Related papers

• Addressing Bias in LLMs: Strategies and Application to Fair AI-based Recruitment [49.81946749379338]
  This work seeks to analyze the capacity of Transformers-based systems to learn demographic biases present in the data.<n>We propose a privacy-enhancing framework to reduce gender information from the learning pipeline as a way to mitigate biased behaviors in the final tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-13T15:29:43Z)
• Relative Bias: A Comparative Framework for Quantifying Bias in LLMs [29.112649816695203]
  Relative Bias is a method designed to assess how an LLM's behavior deviates from other LLMs within a specified target domain.<n>We introduce two complementary methodologies: (1) Embedding Transformation analysis, which captures relative bias patterns through sentence representations over the embedding space, and (2) LLM-as-a-Judge, which employs a language model to evaluate outputs comparatively.<n>Applying our framework to several case studies on bias and alignment scenarios following by statistical tests for validation, we find strong alignment between the two scoring methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-22T01:59:54Z)
• Actions Speak Louder than Words: Agent Decisions Reveal Implicit Biases in Language Models [10.565316815513235]
  Large language models (LLMs) may still exhibit implicit biases when simulating human behavior. We show that state-of-the-art LLMs exhibit significant sociodemographic disparities in nearly all simulations. When comparing our findings to real-world disparities reported in empirical studies, we find that the biases we uncovered are directionally aligned but markedly amplified.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-29T05:21:31Z)
• The Root Shapes the Fruit: On the Persistence of Gender-Exclusive Harms in Aligned Language Models [58.130894823145205]
  We center transgender, nonbinary, and other gender-diverse identities to investigate how alignment procedures interact with pre-existing gender-diverse bias. Our findings reveal that DPO-aligned models are particularly sensitive to supervised finetuning. We conclude with recommendations tailored to DPO and broader alignment practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-06T06:50:50Z)
• Quantifying Risk Propensities of Large Language Models: Ethical Focus and Bias Detection through Role-Play [0.43512163406552007]
  As Large Language Models (LLMs) become more prevalent, concerns about their safety, ethics, and potential biases have risen. This study innovatively applies the Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) scale from cognitive science to LLMs. We propose a novel Ethical Decision-Making Risk Attitude Scale (EDRAS) to assess LLMs' ethical risk attitudes in depth.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-26T15:55:21Z)
• Towards Implicit Bias Detection and Mitigation in Multi-Agent LLM Interactions [25.809599403713506]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being employed in numerous studies to simulate societies and execute diverse social tasks. LLMs are susceptible to societal biases due to their exposure to human-generated data. This study investigates the presence of implicit gender biases in multi-agent LLM interactions and proposes two strategies to mitigate these biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T15:28:05Z)
• GenderCARE: A Comprehensive Framework for Assessing and Reducing Gender Bias in Large Language Models [73.23743278545321]
  Large language models (LLMs) have exhibited remarkable capabilities in natural language generation, but have also been observed to magnify societal biases. GenderCARE is a comprehensive framework that encompasses innovative Criteria, bias Assessment, Reduction techniques, and Evaluation metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-22T15:35:46Z)
• 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)
• Social Debiasing for Fair Multi-modal LLMs [55.8071045346024]
  Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have advanced significantly, offering powerful vision-language understanding capabilities. However, these models often inherit severe social biases from their training datasets, leading to unfair predictions based on attributes like race and gender. This paper addresses the issue of social biases in MLLMs by i) Introducing a comprehensive Counterfactual dataset with Multiple Social Concepts (CMSC) and ii) Proposing an Anti-Stereotype Debiasing strategy (ASD)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-13T02:08:32Z)
• An Actionable Framework for Assessing Bias and Fairness in Large Language Model Use Cases [0.0]
  This paper aims to provide a technical guide for practitioners to assess bias and fairness risks in large language models. The main contribution of this work is a decision framework that allows practitioners to determine which metrics to use for a specific LLM use case.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-15T16:04:44Z)
• Evaluating Implicit Bias in Large Language Models by Attacking From a Psychometric Perspective [66.34066553400108]
  We conduct a rigorous evaluation of large language models' implicit bias towards certain demographics. Inspired by psychometric principles, we propose three attack approaches, i.e., Disguise, Deception, and Teaching. Our methods can elicit LLMs' inner bias more effectively than competitive baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T06:42:08Z)
• Decision-Making Behavior Evaluation Framework for LLMs under Uncertain Context [5.361970694197912]
  This paper proposes a framework, grounded in behavioral economics, to evaluate the decision-making behaviors of large language models (LLMs) We estimate the degree of risk preference, probability weighting, and loss aversion in a context-free setting for three commercial LLMs: ChatGPT-4.0-Turbo, Claude-3-Opus, and Gemini-1.0-pro. Our results reveal that LLMs generally exhibit patterns similar to humans, such as risk aversion and loss aversion, with a tendency to overweight small probabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-10T02:14:19Z)
• Cycles of Thought: Measuring LLM Confidence through Stable Explanations [53.15438489398938]
  Large language models (LLMs) can reach and even surpass human-level accuracy on a variety of benchmarks, but their overconfidence in incorrect responses is still a well-documented failure mode. We propose a framework for measuring an LLM's uncertainty with respect to the distribution of generated explanations for an answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T16:35:30Z)
• Chain-of-Thought Prompting for Demographic Inference with Large Multimodal Models [58.58594658683919]
  Large multimodal models (LMMs) have shown transformative potential across various research tasks. Our findings indicate LMMs possess advantages in zero-shot learning, interpretability, and handling uncurated 'in-the-wild' inputs. We propose a Chain-of-Thought augmented prompting approach, which effectively mitigates the off-target prediction issue.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T16:26:56Z)
• Unveiling the Misuse Potential of Base Large Language Models via In-Context Learning [61.2224355547598]
  Open-sourcing of large language models (LLMs) accelerates application development, innovation, and scientific progress. Our investigation exposes a critical oversight in this belief. By deploying carefully designed demonstrations, our research demonstrates that base LLMs could effectively interpret and execute malicious instructions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-16T13:22:54Z)
• 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)
• The Unequal Opportunities of Large Language Models: Revealing Demographic Bias through Job Recommendations [5.898806397015801]
  We propose a simple method for analyzing and comparing demographic bias in Large Language Models (LLMs) We demonstrate the effectiveness of our method by measuring intersectional biases within ChatGPT and LLaMA. We identify distinct biases in both models toward various demographic identities, such as both models consistently suggesting low-paying jobs for Mexican workers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-03T21:12:54Z)
• Constructing Holistic Measures for Social Biases in Masked Language Models [17.45153670825904]
  Masked Language Models (MLMs) have been successful in many natural language processing tasks. Real-world stereotype biases are likely to be reflected ins due to their learning from large text corpora. Two evaluation metrics, Kullback Leiblergence Score (KLDivS) and Jensen Shannon Divergence Score (JSDivS) are proposed to evaluate social biases ins.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-12T23:09:06Z)

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.