Underneath the Numbers: Quantitative and Qualitative Gender Fairness in LLMs for Depression Prediction

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.08183v2
• Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 09:34:35 GMT
• Title: Underneath the Numbers: Quantitative and Qualitative Gender Fairness in LLMs for Depression Prediction
• Authors: Micol Spitale, Jiaee Cheong, Hatice Gunes,
• Abstract summary: This work presents the first attempt to investigate the degree of gender bias in machine learning models for depression detection. From our quantitative evaluation, we found that ChatGPT performs the best across various performance metrics. We have also identified several themes adopted by LLMs to qualitatively evaluate gender fairness.
• Score: 10.702148378522578
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Recent studies show bias in many machine learning models for depression detection, but bias in LLMs for this task remains unexplored. This work presents the first attempt to investigate the degree of gender bias present in existing LLMs (ChatGPT, LLaMA 2, and Bard) using both quantitative and qualitative approaches. From our quantitative evaluation, we found that ChatGPT performs the best across various performance metrics and LLaMA 2 outperforms other LLMs in terms of group fairness metrics. As qualitative fairness evaluation remains an open research question we propose several strategies (e.g., word count, thematic analysis) to investigate whether and how a qualitative evaluation can provide valuable insights for bias analysis beyond what is possible with quantitative evaluation. We found that ChatGPT consistently provides a more comprehensive, well-reasoned explanation for its prediction compared to LLaMA 2. We have also identified several themes adopted by LLMs to qualitatively evaluate gender fairness. We hope our results can be used as a stepping stone towards future attempts at improving qualitative evaluation of fairness for LLMs especially for high-stakes tasks such as depression detection.

Related papers

• No LLM is Free From Bias: A Comprehensive Study of Bias Evaluation in Large Language models [0.9620910657090186]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have increased the performance of different natural language understanding as well as generation tasks. Although LLMs have breached the state-of-the-art performance in various tasks, they often reflect different forms of bias present in the training data. We provide a unified evaluation of benchmarks using a set of representative LLMs that cover different forms of biases starting from physical characteristics to socio-economic categories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-15T03:58:14Z)
• 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)
• Decompose and Aggregate: A Step-by-Step Interpretable Evaluation Framework [75.81096662788254]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are scalable and economical evaluators. The question of how reliable these evaluators are has emerged as a crucial research question. We propose Decompose and Aggregate, which breaks down the evaluation process into different stages based on pedagogical practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T08:12:30Z)
• Sample-Efficient Human Evaluation of Large Language Models via Maximum Discrepancy Competition [46.949604465227054]
  We propose a sample-efficient human evaluation method based on MAximum Discrepancy (MAD) competition. MAD automatically selects a small set of informative and diverse instructions, each adapted to two LLMs. The pairwise comparison results are then aggregated into a global ranking using the Elo rating system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-10T01:26:24Z)
• Fairness in Large Language Models: A Taxonomic Survey [2.669847575321326]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable success across various domains. Despite their promising performance in numerous real-world applications, most of these algorithms lack fairness considerations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-31T22:22:53Z)
• MLLM-as-a-Judge: Assessing Multimodal LLM-as-a-Judge with Vision-Language Benchmark [41.68821233828375]
  This paper introduces a novel benchmark, termed MLLM-as-a-Judge, to assess the ability of MLLMs in assisting judges across diverse modalities. Our study reveals that, while MLLMs demonstrate remarkable human-like discernment in Pair Comparison, there is a significant divergence from human preferences in Scoring Evaluation and Batch Ranking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-07T12:28:32Z)
• Exploring the Reliability of Large Language Models as Customized Evaluators for Diverse NLP Tasks [65.69651759036535]
  We analyze whether large language models (LLMs) can serve as reliable alternatives to humans. This paper explores both conventional tasks (e.g., story generation) and alignment tasks (e.g., math reasoning) We find that LLM evaluators can generate unnecessary criteria or omit crucial criteria, resulting in a slight deviation from the experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T17:04:35Z)
• Q-Bench: A Benchmark for General-Purpose Foundation Models on Low-level Vision [85.6008224440157]
  Multi-modality Large Language Models (MLLMs) have catalyzed a shift in computer vision from specialized models to general-purpose foundation models. We present Q-Bench, a holistic benchmark crafted to evaluate potential abilities of MLLMs on three realms: low-level visual perception, low-level visual description, and overall visual quality assessment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-25T14:43:43Z)
• A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models [87.60417393701331]
  Large language models (LLMs) are gaining increasing popularity in both academia and industry. This paper focuses on three key dimensions: what to evaluate, where to evaluate, and how to evaluate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-06T16:28:35Z)
• Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations? [80.81532239566992]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional performance on unseen tasks when only the task instructions are provided. We show that the result of LLM evaluation is consistent with the results obtained by expert human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-03T07:28:50Z)

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.