FLEX: A Benchmark for Evaluating Robustness of Fairness in Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.19540v1
• Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 10:48:33 GMT
• Title: FLEX: A Benchmark for Evaluating Robustness of Fairness in Large Language Models
• Authors: Dahyun Jung, Seungyoon Lee, Hyeonseok Moon, Chanjun Park, Heuiseok Lim,
• Abstract summary: We introduce a new benchmark to test whether Large Language Models can sustain fairness even when exposed to prompts constructed to induce bias.<n>We integrate prompts that amplify potential biases into the fairness assessment.<n>This highlights the need for more stringent evaluation benchmarks to guarantee safety and fairness.
• Score: 7.221774553388335
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly enhanced interactions between users and models. These advancements concurrently underscore the need for rigorous safety evaluations due to the manifestation of social biases, which can lead to harmful societal impacts. Despite these concerns, existing benchmarks may overlook the intrinsic weaknesses of LLMs, which can generate biased responses even with simple adversarial instructions. To address this critical gap, we introduce a new benchmark, Fairness Benchmark in LLM under Extreme Scenarios (FLEX), designed to test whether LLMs can sustain fairness even when exposed to prompts constructed to induce bias. To thoroughly evaluate the robustness of LLMs, we integrate prompts that amplify potential biases into the fairness assessment. Comparative experiments between FLEX and existing benchmarks demonstrate that traditional evaluations may underestimate the inherent risks in models. This highlights the need for more stringent LLM evaluation benchmarks to guarantee safety and fairness.

Related papers

• BEATS: Bias Evaluation and Assessment Test Suite for Large Language Models [0.0]
  We introduce BEATS, a novel framework for evaluating Bias, Ethics, Fairness, and Factuality in Large Language Models (LLMs) We present a bias benchmark for LLMs that measure performance across 29 distinct metrics. These metrics span a broad range of characteristics, including demographic, cognitive, and social biases, as well as measures of ethical reasoning, group fairness, and factuality related misinformation risk.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-31T16:56:52Z)
• Can You Trust LLM Judgments? Reliability of LLM-as-a-Judge [0.3759936323189418]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have become increasingly powerful and ubiquitous, but their nature poses challenges to the reliability of their outputs.<n>We introduce a novel framework for rigorously evaluating the reliability of LLM judgments, leveraging McDonald's omega.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-17T03:37:31Z)
• The Vulnerability of Language Model Benchmarks: Do They Accurately Reflect True LLM Performance? [1.3810901729134184]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at standardized tests while failing to demonstrate genuine language understanding and adaptability.<n>Our systematic analysis of NLP evaluation frameworks reveals pervasive vulnerabilities across the evaluation spectrum.<n>We lay the groundwork for new evaluation methods that resist manipulation, minimize data contamination, and assess domain-specific tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-02T20:49:21Z)
• Cycles of Thought: Measuring LLM Confidence through Stable Explanations [53.15438489398938]
  Large language models (LLMs) can reach and even surpass human-level accuracy on a variety of benchmarks, but their overconfidence in incorrect responses is still a well-documented failure mode. We propose a framework for measuring an LLM's uncertainty with respect to the distribution of generated explanations for an answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T16:35:30Z)
• MixEval: Deriving Wisdom of the Crowd from LLM Benchmark Mixtures [57.886592207948844]
  We propose MixEval, a new paradigm for establishing efficient, gold-standard evaluation by strategically mixing off-the-shelf benchmarks. It bridges (1) comprehensive and well-distributed real-world user queries and (2) efficient and fairly-graded ground-truth-based benchmarks, by matching queries mined from the web with similar queries from existing benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-03T05:47:05Z)
• FedEval-LLM: Federated Evaluation of Large Language Models on Downstream Tasks with Collective Wisdom [19.104850413126066]
  Federated Learning (FL) has emerged as a promising solution for collaborative training of large language models (LLMs) Traditional evaluation methods that rely on labeled test sets and similarity-based metrics cover only a subset of the acceptable answers. We propose FedEval-LLM that provides reliable performance measurements of LLMs on downstream tasks without the reliance on labeled test sets and external tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-18T15:46:26Z)
• Unveiling the Misuse Potential of Base Large Language Models via In-Context Learning [61.2224355547598]
  Open-sourcing of large language models (LLMs) accelerates application development, innovation, and scientific progress. Our investigation exposes a critical oversight in this belief. By deploying carefully designed demonstrations, our research demonstrates that base LLMs could effectively interpret and execute malicious instructions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-16T13:22:54Z)
• Is LLM-as-a-Judge Robust? Investigating Universal Adversarial Attacks on Zero-shot LLM Assessment [8.948475969696075]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are powerful zero-shot assessors used in real-world situations such as assessing written exams and benchmarking systems. We show that short universal adversarial phrases can be deceived to judge LLMs to predict inflated scores. It is found that judge-LLMs are significantly more susceptible to these adversarial attacks when used for absolute scoring.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-21T18:55:20Z)
• Flames: Benchmarking Value Alignment of LLMs in Chinese [86.73527292670308]
  This paper proposes a value alignment benchmark named Flames. It encompasses both common harmlessness principles and a unique morality dimension that integrates specific Chinese values. Our findings indicate that all the evaluated LLMs demonstrate relatively poor performance on Flames.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-12T17:18:21Z)
• Don't Make Your LLM an Evaluation Benchmark Cheater [142.24553056600627]
  Large language models(LLMs) have greatly advanced the frontiers of artificial intelligence, attaining remarkable improvement in model capacity. To assess the model performance, a typical approach is to construct evaluation benchmarks for measuring the ability level of LLMs. We discuss the potential risk and impact of inappropriately using evaluation benchmarks and misleadingly interpreting the evaluation results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T14:59:54Z)
• LLMs as Factual Reasoners: Insights from Existing Benchmarks and Beyond [135.8013388183257]
  We propose a new protocol for inconsistency detection benchmark creation and implement it in a 10-domain benchmark called SummEdits. Most LLMs struggle on SummEdits, with performance close to random chance. The best-performing model, GPT-4, is still 8% below estimated human performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T21:50:06Z)

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.