Evaluating the Effect of Retrieval Augmentation on Social Biases

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.17611v1
• Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 19:58:23 GMT
• Title: Evaluating the Effect of Retrieval Augmentation on Social Biases
• Authors: Tianhui Zhang, Yi Zhou, Danushka Bollegala,
• Abstract summary: We study the relationship between the different components of a RAG system and the social biases presented in the text generated across three languages.<n>We find that the biases in document collections are often amplified in the generated responses, even when the generating LLM exhibits a low-level of bias.<n>Our findings raise concerns about the use of RAG as a technique for injecting novel facts into NLG systems and call for careful evaluation of potential social biases in RAG applications before their real-world deployment.
• Score: 28.35953315232521
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) has gained popularity as a method for conveniently incorporating novel facts that were not seen during the pre-training stage in Large Language Model (LLM)-based Natural Language Generation (NLG) systems. However, LLMs are known to encode significant levels of unfair social biases. The modulation of these biases by RAG in NLG systems is not well understood. In this paper, we systematically study the relationship between the different components of a RAG system and the social biases presented in the text generated across three languages (i.e. English, Japanese and Chinese) and four social bias types (i.e. gender, race, age and religion). Specifically, using the Bias Question Answering (BBQ) benchmark datasets, we evaluate the social biases in RAG responses from document collections with varying levels of stereotypical biases, employing multiple LLMs used as generators. We find that the biases in document collections are often amplified in the generated responses, even when the generating LLM exhibits a low-level of bias. Our findings raise concerns about the use of RAG as a technique for injecting novel facts into NLG systems and call for careful evaluation of potential social biases in RAG applications before their real-world deployment.

Related papers

• Retrieval Augmented Generation Evaluation in the Era of Large Language Models: A Comprehensive Survey [29.186229489968564]
  Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has revolutionized natural language processing by integrating Large Language Models (LLMs) with external information retrieval. evaluating RAG systems presents unique challenges due to their hybrid architecture that combines retrieval and generation components.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T06:39:47Z)
• BERGEN: A Benchmarking Library for Retrieval-Augmented Generation [26.158785168036662]
  Retrieval-Augmented Generation allows to enhance Large Language Models with external knowledge. Inconsistent benchmarking poses a major challenge in comparing approaches and understanding the impact of each component in the pipeline. In this work, we study best practices that lay the groundwork for a systematic evaluation of RAG and present BERGEN, an end-to-end library for reproducible research standardizing RAG experiments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-01T09:09:27Z)
• Analyzing Social Biases in Japanese Large Language Models [24.351580958043595]
  We construct the Japanese Bias Benchmark dataset for Question Answering (JBBQ) based on the English bias benchmark BBQ. We analyze social biases in Japanese Large Language Models (LLMs) prompts with warnings about social biases and Chain-of-Thought prompting reduce the effect of biases in model outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-04T07:31:06Z)
• CRUD-RAG: A Comprehensive Chinese Benchmark for Retrieval-Augmented Generation of Large Language Models [49.16989035566899]
  Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is a technique that enhances the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) by incorporating external knowledge sources. This paper constructs a large-scale and more comprehensive benchmark, and evaluates all the components of RAG systems in various RAG application scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-30T14:25:32Z)
• GPTBIAS: A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluating Bias in Large Language Models [83.30078426829627]
  Large language models (LLMs) have gained popularity and are being widely adopted by a large user community. The existing evaluation methods have many constraints, and their results exhibit a limited degree of interpretability. We propose a bias evaluation framework named GPTBIAS that leverages the high performance of LLMs to assess bias in models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-11T12:02:14Z)
• "Kelly is a Warm Person, Joseph is a Role Model": Gender Biases in LLM-Generated Reference Letters [97.11173801187816]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently emerged as an effective tool to assist individuals in writing various types of content. This paper critically examines gender biases in LLM-generated reference letters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-13T16:12:57Z)
• Investigating Subtler Biases in LLMs: Ageism, Beauty, Institutional, and Nationality Bias in Generative Models [0.0]
  This paper investigates bias along less-studied but still consequential, dimensions, such as age and beauty. We ask whether LLMs hold wide-reaching biases of positive or negative sentiment for specific social groups similar to the "what is beautiful is good" bias found in people in experimental psychology.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-16T07:07:04Z)
• Benchmarking Large Language Models in Retrieval-Augmented Generation [53.504471079548]
  We systematically investigate the impact of Retrieval-Augmented Generation on large language models. We analyze the performance of different large language models in 4 fundamental abilities required for RAG. We establish Retrieval-Augmented Generation Benchmark (RGB), a new corpus for RAG evaluation in both English and Chinese.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-04T08:28:44Z)
• 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)
• G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment [64.01972723692587]
  We present G-Eval, a framework of using large language models with chain-of-thoughts (CoT) and a form-filling paradigm to assess the quality of NLG outputs. We show that G-Eval with GPT-4 as the backbone model achieves a Spearman correlation of 0.514 with human on summarization task, outperforming all previous methods by a large margin.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-29T12:46:54Z)
• 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.