Rethinking Prompt-based Debiasing in Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.09219v1
• Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 10:06:03 GMT
• Title: Rethinking Prompt-based Debiasing in Large Language Models
• Authors: Xinyi Yang, Runzhe Zhan, Derek F. Wong, Shu Yang, Junchao Wu, Lidia S. Chao,
• Abstract summary: Investigating bias in large language models (LLMs) is crucial for developing trustworthy AI.<n>While prompt-based through prompt engineering is common, its effectiveness relies on the assumption that models inherently understand biases.<n>Our study systematically analyzed this assumption using the BBQ and StereoSet benchmarks on both open-source models as well as commercial GPT model.
• Score: 40.90578215191079
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Investigating bias in large language models (LLMs) is crucial for developing trustworthy AI. While prompt-based through prompt engineering is common, its effectiveness relies on the assumption that models inherently understand biases. Our study systematically analyzed this assumption using the BBQ and StereoSet benchmarks on both open-source models as well as commercial GPT model. Experimental results indicate that prompt-based is often superficial; for instance, the Llama2-7B-Chat model misclassified over 90% of unbiased content as biased, despite achieving high accuracy in identifying bias issues on the BBQ dataset. Additionally, specific evaluation and question settings in bias benchmarks often lead LLMs to choose "evasive answers", disregarding the core of the question and the relevance of the response to the context. Moreover, the apparent success of previous methods may stem from flawed evaluation metrics. Our research highlights a potential "false prosperity" in prompt-base efforts and emphasizes the need to rethink bias metrics to ensure truly trustworthy AI.

Related papers

• 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.<n>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)
• Towards Resource Efficient and Interpretable Bias Mitigation in Large Language Models [1.787433808079955]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been observed to perpetuate unwanted biases in training data. In this paper, we mitigate bias by leveraging small biased and anti-biased expert models to obtain a debiasing signal. Experiments on mitigating gender, race, and religion biases show a reduction in bias on several local and global bias metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-02T16:56:08Z)
• Investigating Implicit Bias in Large Language Models: A Large-Scale Study of Over 50 LLMs [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are being adopted across a wide range of tasks. Recent research indicates that LLMs can harbor implicit biases even when they pass explicit bias evaluations. This study highlights that newer or larger language models do not automatically exhibit reduced bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-13T03:43:18Z)
• Take Care of Your Prompt Bias! Investigating and Mitigating Prompt Bias in Factual Knowledge Extraction [56.17020601803071]
  Recent research shows that pre-trained language models (PLMs) suffer from "prompt bias" in factual knowledge extraction. This paper aims to improve the reliability of existing benchmarks by thoroughly investigating and mitigating prompt bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-15T02:04:35Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Mitigating Bias for Question Answering Models by Tracking Bias Influence [84.66462028537475]
  We propose BMBI, an approach to mitigate the bias of multiple-choice QA models. Based on the intuition that a model would lean to be more biased if it learns from a biased example, we measure the bias level of a query instance. We show that our method could be applied to multiple QA formulations across multiple bias categories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-13T00:49:09Z)
• 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)

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.