Quantitative Assessment of Intersectional Empathetic Bias and Understanding

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.05777v2
• Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2024 18:35:19 GMT
• Title: Quantitative Assessment of Intersectional Empathetic Bias and Understanding
• Authors: Vojtech Formanek, Ondrej Sotolar,
• Abstract summary: A growing amount of literature critiques the current operationalizations of empathy based on loose definitions of the construct. We propose an empathy evaluation framework that operationalizes empathy close to its psychological origins.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: A growing amount of literature critiques the current operationalizations of empathy based on loose definitions of the construct. Such definitions negatively affect dataset quality, model robustness, and evaluation reliability. We propose an empathy evaluation framework that operationalizes empathy close to its psychological origins. The framework measures the variance in responses of LLMs to prompts using existing metrics for empathy and emotional valence. The variance is introduced through the controlled generation of the prompts by varying social biases affecting context understanding, thus impacting empathetic understanding. The control over generation ensures high theoretical validity of the constructs in the prompt dataset. Also, it makes high-quality translation, especially into languages that currently have little-to-no way of evaluating empathy or bias, such as the Slavonic family, more manageable. Using chosen LLMs and various prompt types, we demonstrate the empathy evaluation with the framework, including multiple-choice answers and free generation. The variance in our initial evaluation sample is small and we were unable to measure convincing differences between the empathetic understanding in contexts given by different social groups. However, the results are promising because the models showed significant alterations their reasoning chains needed to capture the relatively subtle changes in the prompts. This provides the basis for future research into the construction of the evaluation sample and statistical methods for measuring the results.

Related papers

• Reasoning Beyond Labels: Measuring LLM Sentiment in Low-Resource, Culturally Nuanced Contexts [10.492471013369782]
  We present a framework that treats sentiment as a context-dependent, culturally embedded construct.<n>We evaluate how large language models (LLMs) reason about sentiment in WhatsApp messages from Nairobi youth health groups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-06T08:27:55Z)
• Revisiting LLM Value Probing Strategies: Are They Robust and Expressive? [81.49470136653665]
  We evaluate the robustness and expressiveness of value representations across three widely used probing strategies.<n>We show that the demographic context has little effect on the free-text generation, and the models' values only weakly correlate with their preference for value-based actions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-17T18:56:41Z)
• Quantifying Fairness in LLMs Beyond Tokens: A Semantic and Statistical Perspective [13.739343897204568]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) often generate responses with inherent biases, undermining their reliability in real-world applications.<n>Existing evaluation methods often overlook biases in long-form responses and the intrinsic variability of LLM outputs.<n>We propose FiSco, a novel statistical framework to evaluate group-level fairness in LLMs by detecting subtle semantic differences in long-form responses across demographic groups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-23T18:31:22Z)
• Prompt Sentiment: The Catalyst for LLM Change [0.29998889086656577]
  This study systematically examines how sentiment variations in prompts affect large language models (LLMs) Our analysis spans six AI-driven applications, including content generation, conversational AI, legal and financial analysis, healthcare AI, creative writing, and technical documentation. Our findings reveal that prompt sentiment significantly influences model responses, with negative prompts often reducing factual accuracy and amplifying bias, while positive prompts tend to increase verbosity and sentiment propagation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-14T06:25:21Z)
• Large Language Models Often Say One Thing and Do Another [49.22262396351797]
  We develop a novel evaluation benchmark called the Words and Deeds Consistency Test (WDCT) The benchmark establishes a strict correspondence between word-based and deed-based questions across different domains. The evaluation results reveal a widespread inconsistency between words and deeds across different LLMs and domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-10T07:34:54Z)
• Estimating Commonsense Plausibility through Semantic Shifts [66.06254418551737]
  We propose ComPaSS, a novel discriminative framework that quantifies commonsense plausibility by measuring semantic shifts. Evaluations on two types of fine-grained commonsense plausibility estimation tasks show that ComPaSS consistently outperforms baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-19T06:31:06Z)
• Decoding AI Judgment: How LLMs Assess News Credibility and Bias [33.7054351451505]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly embedded in that involve evaluative processes.<n>This raises the need to examine how such evaluations are built, what assumptions they rely on, and how their strategies diverge from those of humans.<n>We benchmark six LLMs against expert ratings--NewsGuard and Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC)--and against human judgments collected through a controlled experiment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-06T18:52:10Z)
• Do Large Language Models Possess Sensitive to Sentiment? [18.88126980975737]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently displayed their extraordinary capabilities in language understanding. This paper investigates the ability of LLMs to detect and react to sentiment in text modal.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-04T01:40:20Z)
• Cobra Effect in Reference-Free Image Captioning Metrics [58.438648377314436]
  A proliferation of reference-free methods, leveraging visual-language pre-trained models (VLMs), has emerged. In this paper, we study if there are any deficiencies in reference-free metrics. We employ GPT-4V as an evaluative tool to assess generated sentences and the result reveals that our approach achieves state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-18T12:36:23Z)
• 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)
• Using Natural Language Explanations to Rescale Human Judgments [81.66697572357477]
  We propose a method to rescale ordinal annotations and explanations using large language models (LLMs) We feed annotators' Likert ratings and corresponding explanations into an LLM and prompt it to produce a numeric score anchored in a scoring rubric. Our method rescales the raw judgments without impacting agreement and brings the scores closer to human judgments grounded in the same scoring rubric.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T06:19:14Z)
• Social Biases in Automatic Evaluation Metrics for NLG [53.76118154594404]
  We propose an evaluation method based on Word Embeddings Association Test (WEAT) and Sentence Embeddings Association Test (SEAT) to quantify social biases in evaluation metrics. We construct gender-swapped meta-evaluation datasets to explore the potential impact of gender bias in image caption and text summarization tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-17T08:55:26Z)
• Towards Explainable Evaluation Metrics for Natural Language Generation [36.594817754285984]
  We identify key properties and propose key goals of explainable machine translation evaluation metrics. We conduct own novel experiments, which find that current adversarial NLP techniques are unsuitable for automatically identifying limitations of high-quality black-box evaluation metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-21T17:05:54Z)
• Measuring Fairness of Text Classifiers via Prediction Sensitivity [63.56554964580627]
  ACCUMULATED PREDICTION SENSITIVITY measures fairness in machine learning models based on the model's prediction sensitivity to perturbations in input features. We show that the metric can be theoretically linked with a specific notion of group fairness (statistical parity) and individual fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-16T15:00:33Z)
• AES Systems Are Both Overstable And Oversensitive: Explaining Why And Proposing Defenses [66.49753193098356]
  We investigate the reason behind the surprising adversarial brittleness of scoring models. Our results indicate that autoscoring models, despite getting trained as "end-to-end" models, behave like bag-of-words models. We propose detection-based protection models that can detect oversensitivity and overstability causing samples with high accuracies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-24T03:49:38Z)
• SMURF: SeMantic and linguistic UndeRstanding Fusion for Caption Evaluation via Typicality Analysis [20.026835809227283]
  We introduce "typicality", a new formulation of evaluation rooted in information theory. We show how these decomposed dimensions of semantics and fluency provide greater system-level insight into captioner differences. Our proposed metrics along with their combination, SMURF, achieve state-of-the-art correlation with human judgment when compared with other rule-based evaluation metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-02T19:58:20Z)

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.