Thinking Fair and Slow: On the Efficacy of Structured Prompts for Debiasing Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.10431v1
• Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 20:27:58 GMT
• Title: Thinking Fair and Slow: On the Efficacy of Structured Prompts for Debiasing Language Models
• Authors: Shaz Furniturewala, Surgan Jandial, Abhinav Java, Pragyan Banerjee, Simra Shahid, Sumit Bhatia, Kokil Jaidka,
• Abstract summary: Existing debiasing techniques are typically training-based or require access to the model's internals and output distributions. We evaluate a comprehensive end-user-focused iterative framework of debiasing that applies System 2 thinking processes for prompts to induce logical, reflective, and critical text generation.
• Score: 14.405446719317291
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Existing debiasing techniques are typically training-based or require access to the model's internals and output distributions, so they are inaccessible to end-users looking to adapt LLM outputs for their particular needs. In this study, we examine whether structured prompting techniques can offer opportunities for fair text generation. We evaluate a comprehensive end-user-focused iterative framework of debiasing that applies System 2 thinking processes for prompts to induce logical, reflective, and critical text generation, with single, multi-step, instruction, and role-based variants. By systematically evaluating many LLMs across many datasets and different prompting strategies, we show that the more complex System 2-based Implicative Prompts significantly improve over other techniques demonstrating lower mean bias in the outputs with competitive performance on the downstream tasks. Our work offers research directions for the design and the potential of end-user-focused evaluative frameworks for LLM use.

Related papers

• Improve LLM-based Automatic Essay Scoring with Linguistic Features [46.41475844992872]
  This paper develops a scoring system capable of handling essays across diverse prompts. Existing methods typically fall into two categories: supervised feature-based approaches and large language model (LLM)-based methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-13T17:09:52Z)
• Satori: Reinforcement Learning with Chain-of-Action-Thought Enhances LLM Reasoning via Autoregressive Search [57.28671084993782]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable reasoning capabilities across diverse domains. Recent studies have shown that increasing test-time computation enhances LLMs' reasoning capabilities. We propose a two-stage training paradigm: 1) a small-scale format tuning stage to internalize the COAT reasoning format and 2) a large-scale self-improvement stage leveraging reinforcement learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-04T17:26:58Z)
• From Human Annotation to LLMs: SILICON Annotation Workflow for Management Research [13.818244562506138]
  This paper introduces the SILICON" (textbfSystematic textbfInference with textbfLLMs for textbfInformation textbfClassificatitextbfon and textbfNotation) workflow. The workflow integrates established principles of human annotation with systematic prompt optimization and model selection. We validate the SILICON workflow through seven case studies covering common management research tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-19T02:21:41Z)
• Adversarial Multi-Agent Evaluation of Large Language Models through Iterative Debates [0.0]
  We propose a framework that interprets large language models (LLMs) as advocates within an ensemble of interacting agents. This approach offers a more dynamic and comprehensive evaluation process compared to traditional human-based assessments or automated metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-07T00:22:07Z)
• Can Long-Context Language Models Subsume Retrieval, RAG, SQL, and More? [54.667202878390526]
  Long-context language models (LCLMs) have the potential to revolutionize our approach to tasks traditionally reliant on external tools like retrieval systems or databases. We introduce LOFT, a benchmark of real-world tasks requiring context up to millions of tokens designed to evaluate LCLMs' performance on in-context retrieval and reasoning. Our findings reveal LCLMs' surprising ability to rival state-of-the-art retrieval and RAG systems, despite never having been explicitly trained for these tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-19T00:28:58Z)
• Which is better? Exploring Prompting Strategy For LLM-based Metrics [6.681126871165601]
  This paper describes the DSBA submissions to the Prompting Large Language Models as Explainable Metrics shared task. Traditional similarity-based metrics such as BLEU and ROUGE have shown to misalign with human evaluation and are ill-suited for open-ended generation tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-07T06:36:39Z)
• Query-Dependent Prompt Evaluation and Optimization with Offline Inverse RL [62.824464372594576]
  We aim to enhance arithmetic reasoning ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) through zero-shot prompt optimization. We identify a previously overlooked objective of query dependency in such optimization. We introduce Prompt-OIRL, which harnesses offline inverse reinforcement learning to draw insights from offline prompting demonstration data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-13T01:12:52Z)
• Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey [73.87651986156006]
  We present a comprehensive survey of bias evaluation and mitigation techniques for large language models (LLMs) We first consolidate, formalize, and expand notions of social bias and fairness in natural language processing. We then unify the literature by proposing three intuitive, two for bias evaluation, and one for mitigation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-02T00:32:55Z)
• Instruction Tuning for Large Language Models: A Survey [52.86322823501338]
  We make a systematic review of the literature, including the general methodology of supervised fine-tuning (SFT) We also review the potential pitfalls of SFT along with criticism against it, along with efforts pointing out current deficiencies of existing strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-21T15:35:16Z)
• Iterative Forward Tuning Boosts In-Context Learning in Language Models [88.25013390669845]
  In this study, we introduce a novel two-stage framework to boost in-context learning in large language models (LLMs) Specifically, our framework delineates the ICL process into two distinct stages: Deep-Thinking and test stages. The Deep-Thinking stage incorporates a unique attention mechanism, i.e., iterative enhanced attention, which enables multiple rounds of information accumulation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T13:18:17Z)

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.