Walking in Others' Shoes: How Perspective-Taking Guides Large Language Models in Reducing Toxicity and Bias

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.15366v1
• Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2024 04:25:01 GMT
• Title: Walking in Others' Shoes: How Perspective-Taking Guides Large Language Models in Reducing Toxicity and Bias
• Authors: Rongwu Xu, Zi'an Zhou, Tianwei Zhang, Zehan Qi, Su Yao, Ke Xu, Wei Xu, Han Qiu,
• Abstract summary: Motivated by social psychology principles, we propose a novel strategy named textscPeT that inspires LLMs to integrate diverse human perspectives and self-regulate their responses. Rigorous evaluations and ablation studies are conducted on two commercial LLMs and three open-source LLMs, revealing textscPeT's superiority in producing less harmful responses.
• Score: 16.85625861663094
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: The common toxicity and societal bias in contents generated by large language models (LLMs) necessitate strategies to reduce harm. Present solutions often demand white-box access to the model or substantial training, which is impractical for cutting-edge commercial LLMs. Moreover, prevailing prompting methods depend on external tool feedback and fail to simultaneously lessen toxicity and bias. Motivated by social psychology principles, we propose a novel strategy named \textbf{perspective-taking prompting (\textsc{PeT})} that inspires LLMs to integrate diverse human perspectives and self-regulate their responses. This self-correction mechanism can significantly diminish toxicity (up to $89\%$) and bias (up to $73\%$) in LLMs' responses. Rigorous evaluations and ablation studies are conducted on two commercial LLMs (ChatGPT and GLM) and three open-source LLMs, revealing \textsc{PeT}'s superiority in producing less harmful responses, outperforming five strong baselines.

Related papers

• Wait, It's All Token Noise? Always Has Been: Interpreting LLM Behavior Using Shapley Value [1.223779595809275]
  Large language models (LLMs) have opened up exciting possibilities for simulating human behavior and cognitive processes. However, the validity of utilizing LLMs as stand-ins for human subjects remains uncertain. This paper presents a novel approach based on Shapley values to interpret LLM behavior and quantify the relative contribution of each prompt component to the model's output.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-29T22:49:43Z)
• FAC$^2$E: Better Understanding Large Language Model Capabilities by Dissociating Language and Cognition [57.747888532651]
  Large language models (LLMs) are primarily evaluated by overall performance on various text understanding and generation tasks. We present FAC$2$E, a framework for Fine-grAined and Cognition-grounded LLMs' Capability Evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-29T21:05:37Z)
• Adversarial Math Word Problem Generation [6.92510069380188]
  We propose a new paradigm for ensuring fair evaluation of large language models (LLMs) We generate adversarial examples which preserve the structure and difficulty of the original questions aimed for assessment, but are unsolvable by LLMs. We conduct experiments on various open- and closed-source LLMs, quantitatively and qualitatively demonstrating that our method significantly degrades their math problem-solving ability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-27T22:07:52Z)
• Exploring Value Biases: How LLMs Deviate Towards the Ideal [57.99044181599786]
  Large-Language-Models (LLMs) are deployed in a wide range of applications, and their response has an increasing social impact. We show that value bias is strong in LLMs across different categories, similar to the results found in human studies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-16T18:28:43Z)
• Learning to Generate Explainable Stock Predictions using Self-Reflective Large Language Models [54.21695754082441]
  We propose a framework to teach Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate explainable stock predictions. A reflective agent learns how to explain past stock movements through self-reasoning, while the PPO trainer trains the model to generate the most likely explanations. Our framework can outperform both traditional deep-learning and LLM methods in prediction accuracy and Matthews correlation coefficient.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-06T03:18:58Z)
• A Group Fairness Lens for Large Language Models [34.0579082699443]
  Large language models can perpetuate biases and unfairness when deployed in social media contexts. We propose evaluating LLM biases from a group fairness lens using a novel hierarchical schema characterizing diverse social groups. We pioneer a novel chain-of-thought method GF-Think to mitigate biases of LLMs from a group fairness perspective.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-24T13:25:15Z)
• 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)
• Automatically Correcting Large Language Models: Surveying the landscape of diverse self-correction strategies [104.32199881187607]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance across a wide array of NLP tasks. A promising approach to rectify these flaws is self-correction, where the LLM itself is prompted or guided to fix problems in its own output. This paper presents a comprehensive review of this emerging class of techniques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-06T18:38:52Z)
• Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMs [60.61002524947733]
  Previous confidence elicitation methods rely on white-box access to internal model information or model fine-tuning. This leads to a growing need to explore the untapped area of black-box approaches for uncertainty estimation. We define a systematic framework with three components: prompting strategies for eliciting verbalized confidence, sampling methods for generating multiple responses, and aggregation techniques for computing consistency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-22T17:31:44Z)

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.