Covert Bias: The Severity of Social Views' Unalignment in Language Models Towards Implicit and Explicit Opinion

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2408.08212v2
• Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2024 11:57:53 GMT
• Title: Covert Bias: The Severity of Social Views' Unalignment in Language Models Towards Implicit and Explicit Opinion
• Authors: Abeer Aldayel, Areej Alokaili, Rehab Alahmadi,
• Abstract summary: We evaluate the severity of bias toward a view by using a biased model in edge cases of excessive bias scenarios. Our findings reveal a discrepancy in LLM performance in identifying implicit and explicit opinions, with a general tendency of bias toward explicit opinions of opposing stances. The direct, incautious responses of the unaligned models suggest a need for further refinement of decisiveness.
• Score: 0.40964539027092917
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: While various approaches have recently been studied for bias identification, little is known about how implicit language that does not explicitly convey a viewpoint affects bias amplification in large language models. To examine the severity of bias toward a view, we evaluated the performance of two downstream tasks where the implicit and explicit knowledge of social groups were used. First, we present a stress test evaluation by using a biased model in edge cases of excessive bias scenarios. Then, we evaluate how LLMs calibrate linguistically in response to both implicit and explicit opinions when they are aligned with conflicting viewpoints. Our findings reveal a discrepancy in LLM performance in identifying implicit and explicit opinions, with a general tendency of bias toward explicit opinions of opposing stances. Moreover, the bias-aligned models generate more cautious responses using uncertainty phrases compared to the unaligned (zero-shot) base models. The direct, incautious responses of the unaligned models suggest a need for further refinement of decisiveness by incorporating uncertainty markers to enhance their reliability, especially on socially nuanced topics with high subjectivity.

Related papers

• The Root Shapes the Fruit: On the Persistence of Gender-Exclusive Harms in Aligned Language Models [58.130894823145205]
  We center transgender, nonbinary, and other gender-diverse identities to investigate how alignment procedures interact with pre-existing gender-diverse bias. Our findings reveal that DPO-aligned models are particularly sensitive to supervised finetuning. We conclude with recommendations tailored to DPO and broader alignment practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-06T06:50:50Z)
• 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)
• The African Woman is Rhythmic and Soulful: An Investigation of Implicit Biases in LLM Open-ended Text Generation [3.9945212716333063]
  Implicit biases are significant because they influence the decisions made by Large Language Models (LLMs) Traditionally, explicit bias tests or embedding-based methods are employed to detect bias, but these approaches can overlook more nuanced, implicit forms of bias. We introduce two novel psychological-inspired methodologies to reveal and measure implicit biases through prompt-based and decision-making tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-01T13:21:33Z)
• Take Care of Your Prompt Bias! Investigating and Mitigating Prompt Bias in Factual Knowledge Extraction [56.17020601803071]
  Recent research shows that pre-trained language models (PLMs) suffer from "prompt bias" in factual knowledge extraction. This paper aims to improve the reliability of existing benchmarks by thoroughly investigating and mitigating prompt bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-15T02:04:35Z)
• 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)
• Cognitive bias in large language models: Cautious optimism meets anti-Panglossian meliorism [0.0]
  Traditional discussions of bias in large language models focus on a conception of bias closely tied to unfairness. Recent work raises the novel possibility of assessing the outputs of large language models for a range of cognitive biases. I draw out philosophical implications of this discussion for the rationality of human cognitive biases as well as the role of unrepresentative data in driving model biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-18T01:58:23Z)
• Social Bias Probing: Fairness Benchmarking for Language Models [38.180696489079985]
  This paper proposes a novel framework for probing language models for social biases by assessing disparate treatment. We curate SoFa, a large-scale benchmark designed to address the limitations of existing fairness collections. We show that biases within language models are more nuanced than acknowledged, indicating a broader scope of encoded biases than previously recognized.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T16:35:59Z)
• Exploring the Jungle of Bias: Political Bias Attribution in Language Models via Dependency Analysis [86.49858739347412]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have sparked intense debate regarding the prevalence of bias in these models and its mitigation. We propose a prompt-based method for the extraction of confounding and mediating attributes which contribute to the decision process. We find that the observed disparate treatment can at least in part be attributed to confounding and mitigating attributes and model misalignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T00:02:25Z)
• This Prompt is Measuring <MASK>: Evaluating Bias Evaluation in Language Models [12.214260053244871]
  We analyse the body of work that uses prompts and templates to assess bias in language models. We draw on a measurement modelling framework to create a taxonomy of attributes that capture what a bias test aims to measure. Our analysis illuminates the scope of possible bias types the field is able to measure, and reveals types that are as yet under-researched.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T06:28:48Z)
• The SAME score: Improved cosine based bias score for word embeddings [49.75878234192369]
  We introduce SAME, a novel bias score for semantic bias in embeddings. We show that SAME is capable of measuring semantic bias and identify potential causes for social bias in downstream tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-28T09:28:13Z)

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.