Bias Similarity Across Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.12010v1
• Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2024 19:21:14 GMT
• Title: Bias Similarity Across Large Language Models
• Authors: Hyejun Jeong, Shiqing Ma, Amir Houmansadr,
• Abstract summary: Bias in machine learning models has been a chronic problem. We take a comprehensive look at ten open- and closed-source Large Language Models. We measure functional similarity to understand how biases manifest across models.
• Score: 32.0365189539138
• License:
• Abstract: Bias in machine learning models has been a chronic problem, especially as these models influence decision-making in human society. In generative AI, such as Large Language Models, the impact of bias is even more profound compared to the classification models. LLMs produce realistic and human-like content that users may unconsciously trust, which could perpetuate harmful stereotypes to the uncontrolled public. It becomes particularly concerning when utilized in journalism or education. While prior studies have explored and quantified bias in individual AI models, no work has yet compared bias similarity across different LLMs. To fill this gap, we take a comprehensive look at ten open- and closed-source LLMs from four model families, assessing the extent of biases through output distribution. Using two datasets-one containing 4k questions and another with one million questions for each of the four bias dimensions -- we measure functional similarity to understand how biases manifest across models. Our findings reveal that 1) fine-tuning does not significantly alter output distributions, which would limit its ability to mitigate bias, 2) LLMs within the same family tree do not produce similar output distributions, implying that addressing bias in one model could have limited implications for others in the same family, and 3) there is a possible risk of training data information leakage, raising concerns about privacy and data security. Our analysis provides insight into LLM behavior and highlights potential risks in real-world deployment.

Related papers

• LLMs are Biased Teachers: Evaluating LLM Bias in Personalized Education [6.354025374447606]
  We evaluate large language models (LLMs) for bias in the personalized educational setting. We reveal significant biases in how models generate and select educational content tailored to different demographic groups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-17T20:27:44Z)
• Towards Implicit Bias Detection and Mitigation in Multi-Agent LLM Interactions [25.809599403713506]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being employed in numerous studies to simulate societies and execute diverse social tasks. LLMs are susceptible to societal biases due to their exposure to human-generated data. This study investigates the presence of implicit gender biases in multi-agent LLM interactions and proposes two strategies to mitigate these biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T15:28:05Z)
• Unboxing Occupational Bias: Grounded Debiasing of LLMs with U.S. Labor Data [9.90951705988724]
  Large Language Models (LLM) are prone to inheriting and amplifying societal biases. LLM bias can have far-reaching consequences, leading to unfair practices and exacerbating social inequalities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-20T23:54:26Z)
• 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)
• Cognitive Bias in Decision-Making with LLMs [19.87475562475802]
  Large language models (LLMs) offer significant potential as tools to support an expanding range of decision-making tasks. LLMs have been shown to inherit societal biases against protected groups, as well as be subject to bias functionally resembling cognitive bias. Our work introduces BiasBuster, a framework designed to uncover, evaluate, and mitigate cognitive bias in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-25T02:35:56Z)
• Pride and Prejudice: LLM Amplifies Self-Bias in Self-Refinement [75.7148545929689]
  Large language models (LLMs) improve their performance through self-feedback on certain tasks while degrade on others. We formally define LLM's self-bias - the tendency to favor its own generation. We analyze six LLMs on translation, constrained text generation, and mathematical reasoning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-18T03:10:39Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Fast Model Debias with Machine Unlearning [54.32026474971696]
  Deep neural networks might behave in a biased manner in many real-world scenarios. Existing debiasing methods suffer from high costs in bias labeling or model re-training. We propose a fast model debiasing framework (FMD) which offers an efficient approach to identify, evaluate and remove biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-19T08:10:57Z)
• Learning from others' mistakes: Avoiding dataset biases without modeling them [111.17078939377313]
  State-of-the-art natural language processing (NLP) models often learn to model dataset biases and surface form correlations instead of features that target the intended task. Previous work has demonstrated effective methods to circumvent these issues when knowledge of the bias is available. We show a method for training models that learn to ignore these problematic correlations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-02T16:10:54Z)

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.