PRISM: A Methodology for Auditing Biases in Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.18906v2
• Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2024 11:48:53 GMT
• Title: PRISM: A Methodology for Auditing Biases in Large Language Models
• Authors: Leif Azzopardi, Yashar Moshfeghi,
• Abstract summary: PRISM is a flexible, inquiry-based methodology for auditing Large Language Models. It seeks to illicit such positions indirectly through task-based inquiry prompting rather than direct inquiry of said preferences.
• Score: 9.751718230639376
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Auditing Large Language Models (LLMs) to discover their biases and preferences is an emerging challenge in creating Responsible Artificial Intelligence (AI). While various methods have been proposed to elicit the preferences of such models, countermeasures have been taken by LLM trainers, such that LLMs hide, obfuscate or point blank refuse to disclosure their positions on certain subjects. This paper presents PRISM, a flexible, inquiry-based methodology for auditing LLMs - that seeks to illicit such positions indirectly through task-based inquiry prompting rather than direct inquiry of said preferences. To demonstrate the utility of the methodology, we applied PRISM on the Political Compass Test, where we assessed the political leanings of twenty-one LLMs from seven providers. We show LLMs, by default, espouse positions that are economically left and socially liberal (consistent with prior work). We also show the space of positions that these models are willing to espouse - where some models are more constrained and less compliant than others - while others are more neutral and objective. In sum, PRISM can more reliably probe and audit LLMs to understand their preferences, biases and constraints.

Related papers

• Implicit Bias in LLMs: A Survey [2.07180164747172]
  This paper provides a comprehensive review of the existing literature on implicit bias in Large language models. We begin by introducing key concepts, theories and methods related to implicit bias in psychology. We categorize detection methods into three primary approaches: word association, task-oriented text generation and decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-04T16:49:37Z)
• Differentially Private Steering for Large Language Model Alignment [55.30573701583768]
  We present the first study of aligning Large Language Models with private datasets. Our work proposes the Private Steering for LLM Alignment (PSA) algorithm to edit activations with differential privacy guarantees. Our results show that PSA achieves DP guarantees for LLM alignment with minimal loss in performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-30T17:58:36Z)
• The Alternative Annotator Test for LLM-as-a-Judge: How to Statistically Justify Replacing Human Annotators with LLMs [21.97227334180969]
  "LLM-as-a-judge" paradigm employs Large Language Models as annotators and evaluators in tasks traditionally performed by humans. Despite their role in shaping study results and insights, there is no standard or rigorous procedure to determine whether LLMs can replace human annotators. We propose a novel statistical procedure -- the Alternative Annotator Test (alt-test) -- that requires only a modest subset of annotated examples to justify using LLM annotations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-19T07:09:11Z)
• Large Language Models Reflect the Ideology of their Creators [71.65505524599888]
  Large language models (LLMs) are trained on vast amounts of data to generate natural language. This paper shows that the ideological stance of an LLM appears to reflect the worldview of its creators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T04:02:30Z)
• Justice or Prejudice? Quantifying Biases in LLM-as-a-Judge [84.34545223897578]
  Despite their excellence in many domains, potential issues are under-explored, undermining their reliability and the scope of their utility. We identify 12 key potential biases and propose a new automated bias quantification framework-CALM- which quantifies and analyzes each type of bias in LLM-as-a-Judge. Our work highlights the need for stakeholders to address these issues and remind users to exercise caution in LLM-as-a-Judge applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T17:53:30Z)
• Exposing Privacy Gaps: Membership Inference Attack on Preference Data for LLM Alignment [8.028743532294532]
  We introduce a novel reference-based attack framework specifically for analyzing preference data called PREMIA. We provide empirical evidence that DPO models are more vulnerable to MIA compared to PPO models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-08T22:53:23Z)
• 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)
• CLAMBER: A Benchmark of Identifying and Clarifying Ambiguous Information Needs in Large Language Models [60.59638232596912]
  We introduce CLAMBER, a benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) Building upon the taxonomy, we construct 12K high-quality data to assess the strengths, weaknesses, and potential risks of various off-the-shelf LLMs. Our findings indicate the limited practical utility of current LLMs in identifying and clarifying ambiguous user queries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-20T14:34:01Z)
• Whose Side Are You On? Investigating the Political Stance of Large Language Models [56.883423489203786]
  We investigate the political orientation of Large Language Models (LLMs) across a spectrum of eight polarizing topics. Our investigation delves into the political alignment of LLMs across a spectrum of eight polarizing topics, spanning from abortion to LGBTQ issues. The findings suggest that users should be mindful when crafting queries, and exercise caution in selecting neutral prompt language.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-15T04:02:24Z)
• Steering LLMs Towards Unbiased Responses: A Causality-Guided Debiasing Framework [20.753141804841]
  Large language models (LLMs) can easily generate biased and discriminative responses. This paper focuses on social bias, tackling the association between demographic information and LLM outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-13T17:46:28Z)
• Political Compass or Spinning Arrow? Towards More Meaningful Evaluations for Values and Opinions in Large Language Models [61.45529177682614]
  We challenge the prevailing constrained evaluation paradigm for values and opinions in large language models. We show that models give substantively different answers when not forced. We distill these findings into recommendations and open challenges in evaluating values and opinions in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-26T18:00:49Z)
• The Political Preferences of LLMs [0.0]
  I administer 11 political orientation tests, designed to identify the political preferences of the test taker, to 24 state-of-the-art conversational LLMs. Most conversational LLMs generate responses that are diagnosed by most political test instruments as manifesting preferences for left-of-center viewpoints. I demonstrate that LLMs can be steered towards specific locations in the political spectrum through Supervised Fine-Tuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-02T02:43:10Z)
• LM-Polygraph: Uncertainty Estimation for Language Models [71.21409522341482]
  Uncertainty estimation (UE) methods are one path to safer, more responsible, and more effective use of large language models (LLMs) We introduce LM-Polygraph, a framework with implementations of a battery of state-of-the-art UE methods for LLMs in text generation tasks, with unified program interfaces in Python. It introduces an extendable benchmark for consistent evaluation of UE techniques by researchers, and a demo web application that enriches the standard chat dialog with confidence scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-13T15:08:59Z)
• Survey on Factuality in Large Language Models: Knowledge, Retrieval and Domain-Specificity [61.54815512469125]
  This survey addresses the crucial issue of factuality in Large Language Models (LLMs) As LLMs find applications across diverse domains, the reliability and accuracy of their outputs become vital.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-11T14:18:03Z)

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.