An Actionable Framework for Assessing Bias and Fairness in Large Language Model Use Cases

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.10853v3
• Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 14:13:41 GMT
• Title: An Actionable Framework for Assessing Bias and Fairness in Large Language Model Use Cases
• Authors: Dylan Bouchard,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) can exhibit bias in a variety of ways.<n>We propose a decision framework that allows practitioners to determine which bias and fairness metrics to use for a specific use case.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) can exhibit bias in a variety of ways. Such biases can create or exacerbate unfair outcomes for certain groups within a protected attribute, including, but not limited to sex, race, sexual orientation, or age. In this paper, we propose a decision framework that allows practitioners to determine which bias and fairness metrics to use for a specific LLM use case. To establish the framework, we define bias and fairness risks for LLMs, map those risks to a taxonomy of LLM use cases, and then define various metrics to assess each type of risk. Instead of focusing solely on the model itself, we account for both prompt-specific- and model-specific-risk by defining evaluations at the level of an LLM use case, characterized by a model and a population of prompts. Furthermore, because all of the evaluation metrics are calculated solely using the LLM output, our proposed framework is highly practical and easily actionable for practitioners. For streamlined implementation, all evaluation metrics included in the framework are offered in this paper's companion Python toolkit, LangFair. Finally, our experiments demonstrate substantial variation in bias and fairness across use cases, underscoring the importance of use-case-level assessments.

Related papers

• 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) We present a bias benchmark for LLMs that measure performance across 29 distinct metrics. 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)
• LangFair: A Python Package for Assessing Bias and Fairness in Large Language Model Use Cases [0.0]
  LangFair aims to equip LLM practitioners with the tools to evaluate bias and fairness risks relevant to their specific use cases. The package offers functionality to easily generate evaluation datasets, comprised of LLM responses to use-case-specific prompts. To guide in metric selection, LangFair offers an actionable decision framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-06T16:20:44Z)
• How to Choose a Threshold for an Evaluation Metric for Large Language Models [0.9423257767158634]
  We propose a step-by-step recipe for picking a threshold for a given large language models (LLMs) evaluation metric. We then propose concrete and statistically rigorous procedures to determine a threshold for the given LLM evaluation metric using available ground-truth data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-10T21:57:25Z)
• 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)
• CEB: Compositional Evaluation Benchmark for Fairness in Large Language Models [58.57987316300529]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-02T16:31:37Z)
• Cycles of Thought: Measuring LLM Confidence through Stable Explanations [53.15438489398938]
  Large language models (LLMs) can reach and even surpass human-level accuracy on a variety of benchmarks, but their overconfidence in incorrect responses is still a well-documented failure mode. We propose a framework for measuring an LLM's uncertainty with respect to the distribution of generated explanations for an answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T16:35:30Z)
• CLAMBER: A Benchmark of Identifying and Clarifying Ambiguous Information Needs in Large Language Models [60.59638232596912]
  We introduce CLAMBER, a benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) Building upon the taxonomy, we construct 12K high-quality data to assess the strengths, weaknesses, and potential risks of various off-the-shelf LLMs. Our findings indicate the limited practical utility of current LLMs in identifying and clarifying ambiguous user queries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-20T14:34:01Z)
• A Normative Framework for Benchmarking Consumer Fairness in Large Language Model Recommender System [9.470545149911072]
  This paper proposes a normative framework to benchmark consumer fairness in LLM-powered recommender systems. We argue that this gap can lead to arbitrary conclusions about fairness. Experiments on the MovieLens dataset on consumer fairness reveal fairness deviations in age-based recommendations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-03T16:25:27Z)
• Unveiling the Misuse Potential of Base Large Language Models via In-Context Learning [61.2224355547598]
  Open-sourcing of large language models (LLMs) accelerates application development, innovation, and scientific progress. Our investigation exposes a critical oversight in this belief. By deploying carefully designed demonstrations, our research demonstrates that base LLMs could effectively interpret and execute malicious instructions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-16T13:22:54Z)
• ALERT: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Assessing Large Language Models' Safety through Red Teaming [64.86326523181553]
  ALERT is a large-scale benchmark to assess safety based on a novel fine-grained risk taxonomy. It aims to identify vulnerabilities, inform improvements, and enhance the overall safety of the language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-06T15:01:47Z)
• 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)
• Prejudice and Volatility: A Statistical Framework for Measuring Social Discrimination in Large Language Models [0.0]
  This study investigates why and how inconsistency in the generation of Large Language Models (LLMs) might induce or exacerbate societal injustice. We formulate the Prejudice-Volatility Framework (PVF) that precisely defines behavioral metrics for assessing LLMs. We mathematically dissect the aggregated discrimination risk of LLMs into prejudice risk, originating from their system bias, and volatility risk.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-23T18:15:56Z)
• Can Large Language Models be Trusted for Evaluation? Scalable Meta-Evaluation of LLMs as Evaluators via Agent Debate [74.06294042304415]
  We propose ScaleEval, an agent-debate-assisted meta-evaluation framework. We release the code for our framework, which is publicly available on GitHub.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-30T07:03:32Z)
• Self-Evaluation Improves Selective Generation in Large Language Models [54.003992911447696]
  We reformulate open-ended generation tasks into token-level prediction tasks. We instruct an LLM to self-evaluate its answers. We benchmark a range of scoring methods based on self-evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-14T19:09:22Z)
• 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)
• Selecting Shots for Demographic Fairness in Few-Shot Learning with Large Language Models [14.772568847965408]
  We explore the effect of shots, which directly affect the performance of models, on the fairness of large language models (LLMs) as NLP classification systems. We consider how different shot selection strategies, both existing and new demographically sensitive methods, affect model fairness across three standard fairness datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T19:02:03Z)

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.