CEB: Compositional Evaluation Benchmark for Fairness in Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.02408v1
• Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 16:31:37 GMT
• Title: CEB: Compositional Evaluation Benchmark for Fairness in Large Language Models
• Authors: Song Wang, Peng Wang, Tong Zhou, Yushun Dong, Zhen Tan, Jundong Li,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed to handle various natural language processing (NLP) tasks. To evaluate the biases exhibited by LLMs, researchers have recently proposed a variety of datasets. We propose CEB, a Compositional Evaluation Benchmark that covers different types of bias across different social groups and tasks.
• Score: 58.57987316300529
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed to handle various natural language processing (NLP) tasks, concerns regarding the potential negative societal impacts of LLM-generated content have also arisen. To evaluate the biases exhibited by LLMs, researchers have recently proposed a variety of datasets. However, existing bias evaluation efforts often focus on only a particular type of bias and employ inconsistent evaluation metrics, leading to difficulties in comparison across different datasets and LLMs. To address these limitations, we collect a variety of datasets designed for the bias evaluation of LLMs, and further propose CEB, a Compositional Evaluation Benchmark that covers different types of bias across different social groups and tasks. The curation of CEB is based on our newly proposed compositional taxonomy, which characterizes each dataset from three dimensions: bias types, social groups, and tasks. By combining the three dimensions, we develop a comprehensive evaluation strategy for the bias in LLMs. Our experiments demonstrate that the levels of bias vary across these dimensions, thereby providing guidance for the development of specific bias mitigation methods.

Related papers

• Diverging Preferences: When do Annotators Disagree and do Models Know? [92.24651142187989]
  We develop a taxonomy of disagreement sources spanning 10 categories across four high-level classes. We find that the majority of disagreements are in opposition with standard reward modeling approaches. We develop methods for identifying diverging preferences to mitigate their influence on evaluation and training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T17:32:22Z)
• Social Debiasing for Fair Multi-modal LLMs [55.8071045346024]
  Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have advanced significantly, offering powerful vision-language understanding capabilities. However, these models often inherit severe social biases from their training datasets, leading to unfair predictions based on attributes like race and gender. This paper addresses the issue of social biases in MLLMs by i) Introducing a comprehensive Counterfactual dataset with Multiple Social Concepts (CMSC) and ii) Proposing an Anti-Stereotype Debiasing strategy (ASD)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-13T02:08:32Z)
• Examining the Influence of Political Bias on Large Language Model Performance in Stance Classification [5.8229466650067065]
  We investigate whether large language models (LLMs) exhibit a tendency to more accurately classify politically-charged stances. Our findings reveal a statistically significant difference in the performance of LLMs across various politically oriented stance classification tasks. LLMs have poorer stance classification accuracy when there is greater ambiguity in the target the statement is directed towards.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-25T01:11:38Z)
• Interpreting Bias in Large Language Models: A Feature-Based Approach [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have showcased remarkable performance across various natural language processing (NLP) tasks. This paper investigates the propagation of biases within LLMs through a novel feature-based analytical approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-18T07:28:15Z)
• Large Language Models are Inconsistent and Biased Evaluators [2.136983452580014]
  We show that Large Language Models (LLMs) are biased evaluators as they exhibit familiarity bias and show skewed distributions of ratings. We also found that LLMs are inconsistent evaluators, showing low "inter-sample" agreement and sensitivity to prompt differences that are insignificant to human understanding of text quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-02T20:42:28Z)
• F-Eval: Assessing Fundamental Abilities with Refined Evaluation Methods [102.98899881389211]
  We propose F-Eval, a bilingual evaluation benchmark to evaluate the fundamental abilities, including expression, commonsense and logic. For reference-free subjective tasks, we devise new evaluation methods, serving as alternatives to scoring by API models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-26T13:55:32Z)
• Large Language Model (LLM) Bias Index -- LLMBI [0.0]
  The Large Language Model Bias Index (LLMBI) is a pioneering approach designed to quantify and address biases inherent in large language models (LLMs) We formulated LLMBI using a composite scoring system incorporating multiple dimensions of bias, including but not limited to age, gender, and racial biases. Our empirical analysis, conducted using responses from OpenAI's API, employs advanced sentiment analysis as a representative method for bias detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-22T15:38:13Z)
• 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 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)

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.