Assessing Bias in Metric Models for LLM Open-Ended Generation Bias Benchmarks

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.11059v1
• Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2024 20:08:40 GMT
• Title: Assessing Bias in Metric Models for LLM Open-Ended Generation Bias Benchmarks
• Authors: Nathaniel Demchak, Xin Guan, Zekun Wu, Ziyi Xu, Adriano Koshiyama, Emre Kazim,
• Abstract summary: This study examines such biases in open-generation benchmarks like BOLD and SAGED. Results reveal unequal treatment of demographic descriptors, calling for more robust bias metric models.
• Score: 3.973239756262797
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Open-generation bias benchmarks evaluate social biases in Large Language Models (LLMs) by analyzing their outputs. However, the classifiers used in analysis often have inherent biases, leading to unfair conclusions. This study examines such biases in open-generation benchmarks like BOLD and SAGED. Using the MGSD dataset, we conduct two experiments. The first uses counterfactuals to measure prediction variations across demographic groups by altering stereotype-related prefixes. The second applies explainability tools (SHAP) to validate that the observed biases stem from these counterfactuals. Results reveal unequal treatment of demographic descriptors, calling for more robust bias metric models.

Related papers

• On the Origins of Sampling Bias: Implications on Fairness Measurement and Mitigation [0.0]
  Several sources of bias exist and it is assumed that bias resulting from machine learning is born equally by different groups. Sampling bias, in particular, is inconsistently used in the literature to describe bias due to the sampling procedure. We introduce clearly defined variants of sampling bias, namely, sample size bias ( SSB) and underrepresentation bias (URB)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-23T06:23:07Z)
• Beneath the Surface: How Large Language Models Reflect Hidden Bias [7.026605828163043]
  We introduce the Hidden Bias Benchmark (HBB), a novel dataset designed to assess hidden bias that bias concepts are hidden within naturalistic, subtly framed contexts in real-world scenarios. We analyze six state-of-the-art Large Language Models, revealing that while models reduce bias in response to overt bias, they continue to reinforce biases in nuanced settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-27T04:25:54Z)
• How far can bias go? -- Tracing bias from pretraining data to alignment [54.51310112013655]
  This study examines the correlation between gender-occupation bias in pre-training data and their manifestation in LLMs. Our findings reveal that biases present in pre-training data are amplified in model outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-28T16:20:25Z)
• 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)
• The Mismeasure of Man and Models: Evaluating Allocational Harms in Large Language Models [22.75594773147521]
  We introduce Rank-Allocation-Based Bias Index (RABBI), a model-agnostic bias measure that assesses potential allocational harms arising from biases in large language models (LLMs) Our results reveal that commonly-used bias metrics based on average performance gap and distribution distance fail to reliably capture group disparities in allocation outcomes. Our work highlights the need to account for how models are used in contexts with limited resource constraints.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-02T14:13:06Z)
• VLBiasBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating Bias in Large Vision-Language Model [72.13121434085116]
  VLBiasBench is a benchmark aimed at evaluating biases in Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) We construct a dataset encompassing nine distinct categories of social biases, including age, disability status, gender, nationality, physical appearance, race, religion, profession, social economic status and two intersectional bias categories (race x gender, and race x social economic status) We conduct extensive evaluations on 15 open-source models as well as one advanced closed-source model, providing some new insights into the biases revealing from these models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T10:56:59Z)
• Subtle Biases Need Subtler Measures: Dual Metrics for Evaluating Representative and Affinity Bias in Large Language Models [10.73340009530019]
  This study addresses two such biases within Large Language Models (LLMs): representative bias and affinity bias. We introduce two novel metrics to measure these biases: the Representative Bias Score (RBS) and the Affinity Bias Score (ABS) Our analysis uncovers marked representative biases in prominent LLMs, with a preference for identities associated with being white, straight, and men. Our investigation of affinity bias reveals distinctive evaluative patterns within each model, akin to bias fingerprints'
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-23T13:35:34Z)
• COBIAS: Contextual Reliability in Bias Assessment [14.594920595573038]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) often inherit biases from the web data they are trained on, which contains stereotypes and prejudices. Current methods for evaluating and mitigating these biases rely on bias-benchmark datasets. We introduce a contextual reliability framework, which evaluates model robustness to biased statements by considering the various contexts in which they may appear.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-22T10:46:11Z)
• Bias in Language Models: Beyond Trick Tests and Toward RUTEd Evaluation [49.3814117521631]
  Standard benchmarks of bias and fairness in large language models (LLMs) measure the association between social attributes implied in user prompts and short responses. We develop analogous RUTEd evaluations from three contexts of real-world use. We find that standard bias metrics have no significant correlation with the more realistic bias metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T01:49:15Z)
• 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)
• IBADR: an Iterative Bias-Aware Dataset Refinement Framework for Debiasing NLU models [52.03761198830643]
  We propose IBADR, an Iterative Bias-Aware dataset Refinement framework. We first train a shallow model to quantify the bias degree of samples in the pool. Then, we pair each sample with a bias indicator representing its bias degree, and use these extended samples to train a sample generator. In this way, this generator can effectively learn the correspondence relationship between bias indicators and samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-01T04:50:38Z)
• General Greedy De-bias Learning [163.65789778416172]
  We propose a General Greedy De-bias learning framework (GGD), which greedily trains the biased models and the base model like gradient descent in functional space. GGD can learn a more robust base model under the settings of both task-specific biased models with prior knowledge and self-ensemble biased model without prior knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-20T14:47:32Z)
• Balancing out Bias: Achieving Fairness Through Training Reweighting [58.201275105195485]
  Bias in natural language processing arises from models learning characteristics of the author such as gender and race. Existing methods for mitigating and measuring bias do not directly account for correlations between author demographics and linguistic variables. This paper introduces a very simple but highly effective method for countering bias using instance reweighting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-16T23:40:28Z)
• LOGAN: Local Group Bias Detection by Clustering [86.38331353310114]
  We argue that evaluating bias at the corpus level is not enough for understanding how biases are embedded in a model. We propose LOGAN, a new bias detection technique based on clustering. Experiments on toxicity classification and object classification tasks show that LOGAN identifies bias in a local region.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-06T16:42:51Z)

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.