Towards detecting unanticipated bias in Large Language Models
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.02650v1
- Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2024 11:25:20 GMT
- Title: Towards detecting unanticipated bias in Large Language Models
- Authors: Anna Kruspe,
- Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) have exhibited fairness issues similar to those in previous machine learning systems.
This research focuses on analyzing and quantifying these biases in training data and their impact on the decisions of these models.
- Score: 1.4589372436314496
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: Over the last year, Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT have become widely available and have exhibited fairness issues similar to those in previous machine learning systems. Current research is primarily focused on analyzing and quantifying these biases in training data and their impact on the decisions of these models, alongside developing mitigation strategies. This research largely targets well-known biases related to gender, race, ethnicity, and language. However, it is clear that LLMs are also affected by other, less obvious implicit biases. The complex and often opaque nature of these models makes detecting such biases challenging, yet this is crucial due to their potential negative impact in various applications. In this paper, we explore new avenues for detecting these unanticipated biases in LLMs, focusing specifically on Uncertainty Quantification and Explainable AI methods. These approaches aim to assess the certainty of model decisions and to make the internal decision-making processes of LLMs more transparent, thereby identifying and understanding biases that are not immediately apparent. Through this research, we aim to contribute to the development of fairer and more transparent AI systems.
Related papers
- Are Large Language Models Really Bias-Free? Jailbreak Prompts for Assessing Adversarial Robustness to Bias Elicitation [0.0]
Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized artificial intelligence, demonstrating remarkable computational power and linguistic capabilities.
These models are inherently prone to various biases stemming from their training data.
This study explores the presence of these biases within the responses given by the most recent LLMs, analyzing the impact on their fairness and reliability.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-07-11T12:30:19Z) - The African Woman is Rhythmic and Soulful: Evaluation of Open-ended Generation for Implicit Biases [0.0]
This study investigates the subtle and often concealed biases present in Large Language Models (LLMs)
The challenge of measuring such biases is exacerbated as LLMs become increasingly proprietary.
This study introduces innovative measures of bias inspired by psychological methodologies.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-07-01T13:21:33Z) - Not All Bias is Bad: Balancing Rational Deviations and Cognitive Biases in Large Language Model Reasoning [0.0]
This paper investigates the nuanced role of biases in the decision-making processes of large language models (LLMs)
By examining rational deviations, we highlight their potential benefits when properly balanced.
We introduce the concepts of moderation and an abstention option, allowing LLMs to abstain from answering when uncertain.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-16T16:25:22Z) - Investigating Bias in LLM-Based Bias Detection: Disparities between LLMs and Human Perception [13.592532358127293]
We investigate the presence and nature of bias within Large Language Models (LLMs)
We probe whether LLMs exhibit biases, particularly in political bias prediction and text continuation tasks.
We propose debiasing strategies, including prompt engineering and model fine-tuning.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-22T00:59:48Z) - Debiasing Multimodal Large Language Models [61.6896704217147]
Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) have become indispensable tools in computer vision and natural language processing.
Our investigation reveals a noteworthy bias in the generated content, where the output is primarily influenced by the underlying Large Language Models (LLMs) prior to the input image.
To rectify these biases and redirect the model's focus toward vision information, we introduce two simple, training-free strategies.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-08T12:35:07Z) - Exploring the Jungle of Bias: Political Bias Attribution in Language Models via Dependency Analysis [86.49858739347412]
Large Language Models (LLMs) have sparked intense debate regarding the prevalence of bias in these models and its mitigation.
We propose a prompt-based method for the extraction of confounding and mediating attributes which contribute to the decision process.
We find that the observed disparate treatment can at least in part be attributed to confounding and mitigating attributes and model misalignment.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-15T00:02:25Z) - Fast Model Debias with Machine Unlearning [54.32026474971696]
Deep neural networks might behave in a biased manner in many real-world scenarios.
Existing debiasing methods suffer from high costs in bias labeling or model re-training.
We propose a fast model debiasing framework (FMD) which offers an efficient approach to identify, evaluate and remove biases.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-19T08:10:57Z) - Should ChatGPT be Biased? Challenges and Risks of Bias in Large Language
Models [11.323961700172175]
This article investigates the challenges and risks associated with biases in large-scale language models like ChatGPT.
We discuss the origins of biases, stemming from, among others, the nature of training data, model specifications, algorithmic constraints, product design, and policy decisions.
We review the current approaches to identify, quantify, and mitigate biases in language models, emphasizing the need for a multi-disciplinary, collaborative effort to develop more equitable, transparent, and responsible AI systems.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-04-07T17:14:00Z) - In Search of Insights, Not Magic Bullets: Towards Demystification of the
Model Selection Dilemma in Heterogeneous Treatment Effect Estimation [92.51773744318119]
This paper empirically investigates the strengths and weaknesses of different model selection criteria.
We highlight that there is a complex interplay between selection strategies, candidate estimators and the data used for comparing them.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-02-06T16:55:37Z) - Testing Occupational Gender Bias in Language Models: Towards Robust Measurement and Zero-Shot Debiasing [98.07536837448293]
Large language models (LLMs) have been shown to exhibit a variety of harmful, human-like biases against various demographics.
We introduce a list of desiderata for robustly measuring biases in generative language models.
We then use this benchmark to test several state-of-the-art open-source LLMs, including Llama, Mistral, and their instruction-tuned versions.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-12-20T22:41:24Z) - Individual Explanations in Machine Learning Models: A Survey for
Practitioners [69.02688684221265]
The use of sophisticated statistical models that influence decisions in domains of high societal relevance is on the rise.
Many governments, institutions, and companies are reluctant to their adoption as their output is often difficult to explain in human-interpretable ways.
Recently, the academic literature has proposed a substantial amount of methods for providing interpretable explanations to machine learning models.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-04-09T01:46:34Z)
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.