HEARTS: A Holistic Framework for Explainable, Sustainable and Robust Text Stereotype Detection

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.11579v1
• Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2024 22:06:46 GMT
• Title: HEARTS: A Holistic Framework for Explainable, Sustainable and Robust Text Stereotype Detection
• Authors: Theo King, Zekun Wu, Adriano Koshiyama, Emre Kazim, Philip Treleaven,
• Abstract summary: We introduce HEARTS (Holistic Framework for Explainable, Sustainable, and Robust Text Stereotype Detection), a framework that enhances model performance, minimises carbon footprint, and provides transparent, interpretable explanations. We establish the Expanded Multi-Grain Stereotype dataset (EMGSD), comprising 57,201 labeled texts across six groups, including under-represented demographics like LGBTQ+ and regional stereotypes. We then analyse a fine-tuned, carbon-efficient ALBERT-V2 model using SHAP to generate token-level importance values, ensuring alignment with human understanding, and calculate explainability confidence scores by comparing SHAP and LIME
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Stereotypes are generalised assumptions about societal groups, and even state-of-the-art LLMs using in-context learning struggle to identify them accurately. Due to the subjective nature of stereotypes, where what constitutes a stereotype can vary widely depending on cultural, social, and individual perspectives, robust explainability is crucial. Explainable models ensure that these nuanced judgments can be understood and validated by human users, promoting trust and accountability. We address these challenges by introducing HEARTS (Holistic Framework for Explainable, Sustainable, and Robust Text Stereotype Detection), a framework that enhances model performance, minimises carbon footprint, and provides transparent, interpretable explanations. We establish the Expanded Multi-Grain Stereotype Dataset (EMGSD), comprising 57,201 labeled texts across six groups, including under-represented demographics like LGBTQ+ and regional stereotypes. Ablation studies confirm that BERT models fine-tuned on EMGSD outperform those trained on individual components. We then analyse a fine-tuned, carbon-efficient ALBERT-V2 model using SHAP to generate token-level importance values, ensuring alignment with human understanding, and calculate explainability confidence scores by comparing SHAP and LIME outputs. Finally, HEARTS is applied to assess stereotypical bias in 12 LLM outputs, revealing a gradual reduction in bias over time within model families.

Related papers

• Editable Fairness: Fine-Grained Bias Mitigation in Language Models [52.66450426729818]
  We propose a novel debiasing approach, Fairness Stamp (FAST), which enables fine-grained calibration of individual social biases. FAST surpasses state-of-the-art baselines with superior debiasing performance. This highlights the potential of fine-grained debiasing strategies to achieve fairness in large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-07T17:14:58Z)
• VALOR-EVAL: Holistic Coverage and Faithfulness Evaluation of Large Vision-Language Models [57.43276586087863]
  Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) suffer from hallucination issues, wherein the models generate plausible-sounding but factually incorrect outputs. Existing benchmarks are often limited in scope, focusing mainly on object hallucinations. We introduce a multi-dimensional benchmark covering objects, attributes, and relations, with challenging images selected based on associative biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-22T04:49:22Z)
• 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)
• ROBBIE: Robust Bias Evaluation of Large Generative Language Models [27.864027322486375]
  Different prompt-based datasets can be used to measure social bias across multiple text domains and demographic axes. We compare 6 different prompt-based bias and toxicity metrics across 12 demographic axes and 5 families of generative LLMs. We conduct a comprehensive study of how well 3 bias/toxicity mitigation techniques perform across our suite of measurements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-29T23:03:04Z)
• Towards Auditing Large Language Models: Improving Text-based Stereotype Detection [5.3634450268516565]
  This work introduces i) the Multi-Grain Stereotype dataset, which includes 52,751 instances of gender, race, profession and religion stereotypic text. We design several experiments to rigorously test the proposed model trained on the novel dataset. Experiments show that training the model in a multi-class setting can outperform the one-vs-all binary counterpart.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-23T17:47:14Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• FairMonitor: A Four-Stage Automatic Framework for Detecting Stereotypes and Biases in Large Language Models [10.57405233305553]
  This paper introduces a four-stage framework to directly evaluate stereotypes and biases in the generated content of Large Language Models (LLMs) Using the education sector as a case study, we constructed the Edu-FairMonitor based on the four-stage framework. Experimental results reveal varying degrees of stereotypes and biases in five LLMs evaluated on Edu-FairMonitor.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-21T00:25:17Z)
• On The Role of Reasoning in the Identification of Subtle Stereotypes in Natural Language [0.03749861135832073]
  Large language models (LLMs) are trained on vast, uncurated datasets that contain various forms of biases and language reinforcing harmful stereotypes. It is essential to examine and address biases in language models, integrating fairness into their development to ensure that these models do not perpetuate social biases. This work firmly establishes reasoning as a critical component in automatic stereotype detection and is a first step towards stronger stereotype mitigation pipelines for LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-24T15:12:13Z)
• DualFair: Fair Representation Learning at Both Group and Individual Levels via Contrastive Self-supervision [73.80009454050858]
  This work presents a self-supervised model, called DualFair, that can debias sensitive attributes like gender and race from learned representations. Our model jointly optimize for two fairness criteria - group fairness and counterfactual fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-15T07:13:54Z)
• Towards Understanding and Mitigating Social Biases in Language Models [107.82654101403264]
  Large-scale pretrained language models (LMs) can be potentially dangerous in manifesting undesirable representational biases. We propose steps towards mitigating social biases during text generation. Our empirical results and human evaluation demonstrate effectiveness in mitigating bias while retaining crucial contextual information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-24T17:52:43Z)

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.