Unveiling and Mitigating Bias in Mental Health Analysis with Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.12033v2
• Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 18:28:22 GMT
• Title: Unveiling and Mitigating Bias in Mental Health Analysis with Large Language Models
• Authors: Yuqing Wang, Yun Zhao, Sara Alessandra Keller, Anne de Hond, Marieke M. van Buchem, Malvika Pillai, Tina Hernandez-Boussard,
• Abstract summary: We show that GPT-4 is the best overall balance in performance and fairness among large language models (LLMs) Our tailored fairness-aware prompts can effectively bias in mental health predictions, highlighting the great potential for fair analysis in this field.
• Score: 13.991577818021495
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: The advancement of large language models (LLMs) has demonstrated strong capabilities across various applications, including mental health analysis. However, existing studies have focused on predictive performance, leaving the critical issue of fairness underexplored, posing significant risks to vulnerable populations. Despite acknowledging potential biases, previous works have lacked thorough investigations into these biases and their impacts. To address this gap, we systematically evaluate biases across seven social factors (e.g., gender, age, religion) using ten LLMs with different prompting methods on eight diverse mental health datasets. Our results show that GPT-4 achieves the best overall balance in performance and fairness among LLMs, although it still lags behind domain-specific models like MentalRoBERTa in some cases. Additionally, our tailored fairness-aware prompts can effectively mitigate bias in mental health predictions, highlighting the great potential for fair analysis in this field.

Related papers

• 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)
• Machine Learning Approaches for Mental Illness Detection on Social Media: A Systematic Review of Biases and Methodological Challenges [0.037693031068634524]
  This systematic review examines machine learning models for detecting mental illness using social media data. It highlights biases and methodological challenges encountered throughout the machine learning lifecycle. By overcoming these challenges, future research can develop more robust and generalizable ML models for depression detection on social media.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T17:05:50Z)
• 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)
• Evaluating Implicit Bias in Large Language Models by Attacking From a Psychometric Perspective [66.34066553400108]
  We conduct a rigorous evaluation of large language models' implicit bias towards certain demographics. Inspired by psychometric principles, we propose three attack approaches, i.e., Disguise, Deception, and Teaching. Our methods can elicit LLMs' inner bias more effectively than competitive baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T06:42:08Z)
• WellDunn: On the Robustness and Explainability of Language Models and Large Language Models in Identifying Wellness Dimensions [46.60244609728416]
  Language Models (LMs) are being proposed for mental health applications where the heightened risk of adverse outcomes means predictive performance may not be a litmus test of a model's utility in clinical practice. We introduce an evaluation design that focuses on the robustness and explainability of LMs in identifying Wellness Dimensions (WDs) We reveal four surprising results about LMs/LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-17T19:50:40Z)
• GPTBIAS: A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluating Bias in Large Language Models [83.30078426829627]
  Large language models (LLMs) have gained popularity and are being widely adopted by a large user community. The existing evaluation methods have many constraints, and their results exhibit a limited degree of interpretability. We propose a bias evaluation framework named GPTBIAS that leverages the high performance of LLMs to assess bias in models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-11T12:02:14Z)
• Bias Runs Deep: Implicit Reasoning Biases in Persona-Assigned LLMs [67.51906565969227]
  We study the unintended side-effects of persona assignment on the ability of LLMs to perform basic reasoning tasks. Our study covers 24 reasoning datasets, 4 LLMs, and 19 diverse personas (e.g. an Asian person) spanning 5 socio-demographic groups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-08T18:52:17Z)
• Clever Hans or Neural Theory of Mind? Stress Testing Social Reasoning in Large Language Models [82.50173296858377]
  Many anecdotal examples were used to suggest newer large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT and GPT-4 exhibit Neural Theory-of-Mind (N-ToM) We investigate the extent of LLMs' N-ToM through an extensive evaluation on 6 tasks and find that while LLMs exhibit certain N-ToM abilities, this behavior is far from being robust.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T06:14:31Z)
• Towards Interpretable Mental Health Analysis with Large Language Models [27.776003210275608]
  We evaluate the mental health analysis and emotional reasoning ability of large language models (LLMs) on 11 datasets across 5 tasks. Based on prompts, we explore LLMs for interpretable mental health analysis by instructing them to generate explanations for each of their decisions. We convey strict human evaluations to assess the quality of the generated explanations, leading to a novel dataset with 163 human-assessed explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-06T19:53:59Z)
• Blacks is to Anger as Whites is to Joy? Understanding Latent Affective Bias in Large Pre-trained Neural Language Models [3.5278693565908137]
  "Affective Bias" is biased association of emotions towards a particular gender, race, and religion. We show the existence of statistically significant affective bias in the PLM based emotion detection systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-21T20:23:09Z)
• Bias Reducing Multitask Learning on Mental Health Prediction [18.32551434711739]
  There has been an increase in research in developing machine learning models for mental health detection or prediction. In this work, we aim to perform a fairness analysis and implement a multi-task learning based bias mitigation method on anxiety prediction models. Our analysis showed that our anxiety prediction base model introduced some bias with regards to age, income, ethnicity, and whether a participant is born in the U.S. or not.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-08-07T02:28:32Z)

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.