The Impossibility of Fair LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.03198v2
• Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2025 14:35:42 GMT
• Title: The Impossibility of Fair LLMs
• Authors: Jacy Anthis, Kristian Lum, Michael Ekstrand, Avi Feller, Chenhao Tan,
• Abstract summary: We analyze a variety of technical fairness frameworks and find inherent challenges in each that make the development of a fair language model intractable.<n>We show that each framework either does not extend to the general-purpose AI context or is infeasible in practice.<n>These inherent challenges would persist for general-purpose AI, including LLMs, even if empirical challenges, such as limited participatory input and limited measurement methods, were overcome.
• Score: 17.812295963158714
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The rise of general-purpose artificial intelligence (AI) systems, particularly large language models (LLMs), has raised pressing moral questions about how to reduce bias and ensure fairness at scale. Researchers have documented a sort of "bias" in the significant correlations between demographics (e.g., race, gender) in LLM prompts and responses, but it remains unclear how LLM fairness could be evaluated with more rigorous definitions, such as group fairness or fair representations. We analyze a variety of technical fairness frameworks and find inherent challenges in each that make the development of a fair LLM intractable. We show that each framework either does not logically extend to the general-purpose AI context or is infeasible in practice, primarily due to the large amounts of unstructured training data and the many potential combinations of human populations, use cases, and sensitive attributes. These inherent challenges would persist for general-purpose AI, including LLMs, even if empirical challenges, such as limited participatory input and limited measurement methods, were overcome. Nonetheless, fairness will remain an important type of model evaluation, and there are still promising research directions, particularly the development of standards for the responsibility of LLM developers, context-specific evaluations, and methods of iterative, participatory, and AI-assisted evaluation that could scale fairness across the diverse contexts of modern human-AI interaction.

Related papers

• Truly Assessing Fluid Intelligence of Large Language Models through Dynamic Reasoning Evaluation [75.26829371493189]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive reasoning capacities that mirror human-like thinking.<n>Existing reasoning benchmarks either focus on domain-specific knowledge (crystallized intelligence) or lack interpretability.<n>We propose DRE-Bench, a dynamic reasoning evaluation benchmark grounded in a hierarchical cognitive framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-03T09:01:08Z)
• Arbiters of Ambivalence: Challenges of Using LLMs in No-Consensus Tasks [52.098988739649705]
  This study examines the biases and limitations of LLMs in three roles: answer generator, judge, and debater.<n>We develop a no-consensus'' benchmark by curating examples that encompass a variety of a priori ambivalent scenarios.<n>Our results show that while LLMs can provide nuanced assessments when generating open-ended answers, they tend to take a stance on no-consensus topics when employed as judges or debaters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T01:31:54Z)
• A Call for New Recipes to Enhance Spatial Reasoning in MLLMs [85.67171333213301]
  Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance in general vision-language tasks. Recent studies have exposed critical limitations in their spatial reasoning capabilities. This deficiency in spatial reasoning significantly constrains MLLMs' ability to interact effectively with the physical world.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T11:48:39Z)
• Multi-Agent LLM Judge: automatic personalized LLM judge design for evaluating natural language generation applications [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance across diverse domains, yet they still encounter challenges such as insufficient domain-specific knowledge, biases, and hallucinations.<n>Traditional evaluation methods, which rely on word overlap or text embeddings, are inadequate for capturing the nuanced semantic information necessary to evaluate dynamic, open-ended text generation.<n>We propose a novel dynamic multi-agent system that automatically designs personalized LLM judges for various natural language generation applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-01T09:36:56Z)
• BEATS: Bias Evaluation and Assessment Test Suite for Large Language Models [0.0]
  We introduce BEATS, a novel framework for evaluating Bias, Ethics, Fairness, and Factuality in Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We present a bias benchmark for LLMs that measure performance across 29 distinct metrics.<n>These metrics span a broad range of characteristics, including demographic, cognitive, and social biases, as well as measures of ethical reasoning, group fairness, and factuality related misinformation risk.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-31T16:56:52Z)
• Causality Is Key to Understand and Balance Multiple Goals in Trustworthy ML and Foundation Models [91.24296813969003]
  This paper advocates integrating causal methods into machine learning to navigate the trade-offs among key principles of trustworthy ML. We argue that a causal approach is essential for balancing multiple competing objectives in both trustworthy ML and foundation models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-28T14:57:33Z)
• An Overview of Large Language Models for Statisticians [109.38601458831545]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as transformative tools in artificial intelligence (AI) This paper explores potential areas where statisticians can make important contributions to the development of LLMs. We focus on issues such as uncertainty quantification, interpretability, fairness, privacy, watermarking and model adaptation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-25T03:40:36Z)
• Bias in Large Language Models: Origin, Evaluation, and Mitigation [4.606140332500086]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized natural language processing, but their susceptibility to biases poses significant challenges. This comprehensive review examines the landscape of bias in LLMs, from its origins to current mitigation strategies. Ethical and legal implications of biased LLMs are discussed, emphasizing potential harms in real-world applications such as healthcare and criminal justice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-16T23:54:53Z)
• Persuasion with Large Language Models: a Survey [49.86930318312291]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have created new disruptive possibilities for persuasive communication. In areas such as politics, marketing, public health, e-commerce, and charitable giving, such LLM Systems have already achieved human-level or even super-human persuasiveness. Our survey suggests that the current and future potential of LLM-based persuasion poses profound ethical and societal risks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-11T10:05:52Z)
• A Human-in-the-Loop Fairness-Aware Model Selection Framework for Complex Fairness Objective Landscapes [37.5215569371757]
  ManyFairHPO is a fairness-aware model selection framework that enables practitioners to navigate complex and nuanced fairness objective landscapes. We demonstrate the effectiveness of ManyFairHPO in balancing multiple fairness objectives, mitigating risks such as self-fulfilling prophecies, and providing interpretable insights to guide stakeholders in making fairness-aware modeling decisions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-17T07:32:24Z)
• 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)
• Navigating LLM Ethics: Advancements, Challenges, and Future Directions [5.023563968303034]
  This study addresses ethical issues surrounding Large Language Models (LLMs) within the field of artificial intelligence. It explores the common ethical challenges posed by both LLMs and other AI systems. It highlights challenges such as hallucination, verifiable accountability, and decoding censorship complexity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-14T15:03:05Z)
• Few-Shot Fairness: Unveiling LLM's Potential for Fairness-Aware Classification [7.696798306913988]
  We introduce a framework outlining fairness regulations aligned with various fairness definitions. We explore the configuration for in-context learning and the procedure for selecting in-context demonstrations using RAG. Experiments conducted with different LLMs indicate that GPT-4 delivers superior results in terms of both accuracy and fairness compared to other models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-28T17:29:27Z)
• Inadequacies of Large Language Model Benchmarks in the Era of Generative Artificial Intelligence [5.147767778946168]
  We critically assess 23 state-of-the-art Large Language Models (LLMs) benchmarks. Our research uncovered significant limitations, including biases, difficulties in measuring genuine reasoning, adaptability, implementation inconsistencies, prompt engineering complexity, diversity, and the overlooking of cultural and ideological norms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-15T11:08:10Z)
• Towards Responsible AI in Banking: Addressing Bias for Fair Decision-Making [69.44075077934914]
  "Responsible AI" emphasizes the critical nature of addressing biases within the development of a corporate culture. This thesis is structured around three fundamental pillars: understanding bias, mitigating bias, and accounting for bias. In line with open-source principles, we have released Bias On Demand and FairView as accessible Python packages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-13T14:07:09Z)
• Survey of Social Bias in Vision-Language Models [65.44579542312489]
  Survey aims to provide researchers with a high-level insight into the similarities and differences of social bias studies in pre-trained models across NLP, CV, and VL. The findings and recommendations presented here can benefit the ML community, fostering the development of fairer and non-biased AI models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-24T15:34:56Z)
• 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)
• Skills-in-Context Prompting: Unlocking Compositionality in Large Language Models [68.18370230899102]
  We investigate how to elicit compositional generalization capabilities in large language models (LLMs) We find that demonstrating both foundational skills and compositional examples grounded in these skills within the same prompt context is crucial. We show that fine-tuning LLMs with SKiC-style data can elicit zero-shot weak-to-strong generalization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-01T05:54:12Z)
• Large Language Models are Not Yet Human-Level Evaluators for Abstractive Summarization [66.08074487429477]
  We investigate the stability and reliability of large language models (LLMs) as automatic evaluators for abstractive summarization. We find that while ChatGPT and GPT-4 outperform the commonly used automatic metrics, they are not ready as human replacements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T14:58:13Z)
• Can Fairness be Automated? Guidelines and Opportunities for Fairness-aware AutoML [52.86328317233883]
  We present a comprehensive overview of different ways in which fairness-related harm can arise. We highlight several open technical challenges for future work in this direction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-15T09:40:08Z)
• Getting Fairness Right: Towards a Toolbox for Practitioners [2.4364387374267427]
  The potential risk of AI systems unintentionally embedding and reproducing bias has attracted the attention of machine learning practitioners and society at large. This paper proposes to draft a toolbox which helps practitioners to ensure fair AI practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-15T20:53:50Z)

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.