Are Large Language Models Really Bias-Free? Jailbreak Prompts for Assessing Adversarial Robustness to Bias Elicitation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.08441v1
• Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 12:30:19 GMT
• Title: Are Large Language Models Really Bias-Free? Jailbreak Prompts for Assessing Adversarial Robustness to Bias Elicitation
• Authors: Riccardo Cantini, Giada Cosenza, Alessio Orsino, Domenico Talia,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized artificial intelligence, demonstrating remarkable computational power and linguistic capabilities. These models are inherently prone to various biases stemming from their training data. This study explores the presence of these biases within the responses given by the most recent LLMs, analyzing the impact on their fairness and reliability.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized artificial intelligence, demonstrating remarkable computational power and linguistic capabilities. However, these models are inherently prone to various biases stemming from their training data. These include selection, linguistic, and confirmation biases, along with common stereotypes related to gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, socioeconomic status, disability, and age. This study explores the presence of these biases within the responses given by the most recent LLMs, analyzing the impact on their fairness and reliability. We also investigate how known prompt engineering techniques can be exploited to effectively reveal hidden biases of LLMs, testing their adversarial robustness against jailbreak prompts specially crafted for bias elicitation. Extensive experiments are conducted using the most widespread LLMs at different scales, confirming that LLMs can still be manipulated to produce biased or inappropriate responses, despite their advanced capabilities and sophisticated alignment processes. Our findings underscore the importance of enhancing mitigation techniques to address these safety issues, toward a more sustainable and inclusive artificial intelligence.

Related papers

• Behavioral Testing: Can Large Language Models Implicitly Resolve Ambiguous Entities? [27.10502683001428]
  We analyze current state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) for their proficiency and consistency in applying their factual knowledge when prompted for entities under ambiguity. Experiments reveal that LLMs perform poorly with ambiguous prompts, achieving only 80% accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-24T09:48:48Z)
• A Causal Explainable Guardrails for Large Language Models [29.441292837667415]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown impressive performance in natural language tasks, but their outputs can exhibit undesirable attributes or biases. Existing methods for steering LLMs towards desired attributes often assume unbiased representations and rely solely on steering prompts. We propose LLMGuardaril, a novel framework that incorporates causal analysis and adversarial learning to obtain unbiased steering representations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-07T09:55:05Z)
• LLMs' Reading Comprehension Is Affected by Parametric Knowledge and Struggles with Hypothetical Statements [59.71218039095155]
  Task of reading comprehension (RC) provides a primary means to assess language models' natural language understanding (NLU) capabilities. If the context aligns with the models' internal knowledge, it is hard to discern whether the models' answers stem from context comprehension or from internal information. To address this issue, we suggest to use RC on imaginary data, based on fictitious facts and entities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-09T13:08:56Z)
• Towards detecting unanticipated bias in Large Language Models [1.4589372436314496]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have exhibited fairness issues similar to those in previous machine learning systems. This research focuses on analyzing and quantifying these biases in training data and their impact on the decisions of these models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-03T11:25:20Z)
• The Strong Pull of Prior Knowledge in Large Language Models and Its Impact on Emotion Recognition [74.04775677110179]
  In-context Learning (ICL) has emerged as a powerful paradigm for performing natural language tasks with Large Language Models (LLM) We show that LLMs have strong yet inconsistent priors in emotion recognition that ossify their predictions. Our results suggest that caution is needed when using ICL with larger LLMs for affect-centered tasks outside their pre-training domain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-25T19:07:32Z)
• Cognitive Bias in High-Stakes Decision-Making with LLMs [19.87475562475802]
  We develop a framework designed to uncover, evaluate, and mitigate cognitive bias in large language models (LLMs) Inspired by prior research in psychology and cognitive science, we develop a dataset containing 16,800 prompts to evaluate different cognitive biases. We test various bias mitigation strategies, amidst proposing a novel method utilising LLMs to debias their own prompts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-25T02:35:56Z)
• Uncertainty Quantification for In-Context Learning of Large Language Models [52.891205009620364]
  In-context learning has emerged as a groundbreaking ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) We propose a novel formulation and corresponding estimation method to quantify both types of uncertainties. The proposed method offers an unsupervised way to understand the prediction of in-context learning in a plug-and-play fashion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-15T18:46:24Z)
• Self-Debiasing Large Language Models: Zero-Shot Recognition and Reduction of Stereotypes [73.12947922129261]
  We leverage the zero-shot capabilities of large language models to reduce stereotyping. We show that self-debiasing can significantly reduce the degree of stereotyping across nine different social groups. We hope this work opens inquiry into other zero-shot techniques for bias mitigation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-03T01:40:11Z)
• Supervised Knowledge Makes Large Language Models Better In-context Learners [94.89301696512776]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit emerging in-context learning abilities through prompt engineering. The challenge of improving the generalizability and factuality of LLMs in natural language understanding and question answering remains under-explored. We propose a framework that enhances the reliability of LLMs as it: 1) generalizes out-of-distribution data, 2) elucidates how LLMs benefit from discriminative models, and 3) minimizes hallucinations in generative tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-26T07:24:46Z)
• Are Large Language Models Really Robust to Word-Level Perturbations? [68.60618778027694]
  We propose a novel rational evaluation approach that leverages pre-trained reward models as diagnostic tools. Longer conversations manifest the comprehensive grasp of language models in terms of their proficiency in understanding questions. Our results demonstrate that LLMs frequently exhibit vulnerability to word-level perturbations that are commonplace in daily language usage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-20T09:23:46Z)

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.