Beyond Performance: Quantifying and Mitigating Label Bias in LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.02743v1
• Date: Sat, 4 May 2024 19:53:03 GMT
• Title: Beyond Performance: Quantifying and Mitigating Label Bias in LLMs
• Authors: Yuval Reif, Roy Schwartz,
• Abstract summary: We evaluate different approaches to quantifying label bias in a model's predictions. Our investigation reveals substantial label bias in models both before and after debiasing attempts. We propose a novel label bias calibration method tailored for few-shot prompting.
• Score: 8.77694178599322
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable adaptability to diverse tasks, by leveraging context prompts containing instructions, or minimal input-output examples. However, recent work revealed they also exhibit label bias -- an undesirable preference toward predicting certain answers over others. Still, detecting and measuring this bias reliably and at scale has remained relatively unexplored. In this study, we evaluate different approaches to quantifying label bias in a model's predictions, conducting a comprehensive investigation across 279 classification tasks and ten LLMs. Our investigation reveals substantial label bias in models both before and after debiasing attempts, as well as highlights the importance of outcomes-based evaluation metrics, which were not previously used in this regard. We further propose a novel label bias calibration method tailored for few-shot prompting, which outperforms recent calibration approaches for both improving performance and mitigating label bias. Our results emphasize that label bias in the predictions of LLMs remains a barrier to their reliability.

Related papers

• A Simple Remedy for Dataset Bias via Self-Influence: A Mislabeled Sample Perspective [33.78421391776591]
  In this paper, we propose a novel perspective of mislabeled sample detection. We show that our new perspective can boost the precision of detection and rectify biased models effectively. Our approach is complementary to existing methods, showing performance improvement even when applied to models that have already undergone recent debiasing techniques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-01T04:54:32Z)
• Investigating Implicit Bias in Large Language Models: A Large-Scale Study of Over 50 LLMs [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are being adopted across a wide range of tasks. Recent research indicates that LLMs can harbor implicit biases even when they pass explicit bias evaluations. This study highlights that newer or larger language models do not automatically exhibit reduced bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-13T03:43:18Z)
• 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)
• Towards the Mitigation of Confirmation Bias in Semi-supervised Learning: a Debiased Training Perspective [6.164100243945264]
  Semi-supervised learning (SSL) commonly exhibits confirmation bias, where models disproportionately favor certain classes. We introduce TaMatch, a unified framework for debiased training in SSL. We show that TaMatch significantly outperforms existing state-of-the-art methods across a range of challenging image classification tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-26T21:50:30Z)
• Mitigating the Bias of Large Language Model Evaluation [30.67730115141905]
  We propose systematic research about the bias of LLM-as-a-Judge. For closed-source judge models, we apply calibration to mitigate the significance of superficial quality. For open-source judge models, we propose to mitigate the bias by contrastive training, with curated negative samples that deviate from instruction but present better superficial quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-25T09:52:44Z)
• Editable Fairness: Fine-Grained Bias Mitigation in Language Models [52.66450426729818]
  We propose a novel debiasing approach, Fairness Stamp (FAST), which enables fine-grained calibration of individual social biases. FAST surpasses state-of-the-art baselines with superior debiasing performance. This highlights the potential of fine-grained debiasing strategies to achieve fairness in large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-07T17:14:58Z)
• Take Care of Your Prompt Bias! Investigating and Mitigating Prompt Bias in Factual Knowledge Extraction [56.17020601803071]
  Recent research shows that pre-trained language models (PLMs) suffer from "prompt bias" in factual knowledge extraction. This paper aims to improve the reliability of existing benchmarks by thoroughly investigating and mitigating prompt bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-15T02:04:35Z)
• Mitigating Label Biases for In-context Learning [28.209613730240633]
  Various design settings for in-context learning (ICL) can bias a model toward a particular prediction without being reflective of an understanding of the task. In this work, we define a typology for three types of label biases in ICL for text classification: vanilla-label bias, context-label bias, and domain-label bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-28T15:37:39Z)
• Delving into Identify-Emphasize Paradigm for Combating Unknown Bias [52.76758938921129]
  We propose an effective bias-conflicting scoring method (ECS) to boost the identification accuracy. We also propose gradient alignment (GA) to balance the contributions of the mined bias-aligned and bias-conflicting samples. Experiments are conducted on multiple datasets in various settings, demonstrating that the proposed solution can mitigate the impact of unknown biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-22T14:50:24Z)
• Information-Theoretic Bias Reduction via Causal View of Spurious Correlation [71.9123886505321]
  We propose an information-theoretic bias measurement technique through a causal interpretation of spurious correlation. We present a novel debiasing framework against the algorithmic bias, which incorporates a bias regularization loss. The proposed bias measurement and debiasing approaches are validated in diverse realistic scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-10T01:19:31Z)
• Balancing out Bias: Achieving Fairness Through Training Reweighting [58.201275105195485]
  Bias in natural language processing arises from models learning characteristics of the author such as gender and race. Existing methods for mitigating and measuring bias do not directly account for correlations between author demographics and linguistic variables. This paper introduces a very simple but highly effective method for countering bias using instance reweighting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-16T23:40:28Z)

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.