Towards detecting unanticipated bias in Large Language Models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Over the last year, Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT have become widely available and have exhibited fairness issues similar to those in previous machine learning systems. Current research is primarily focused on analyzing and quantifying these biases in training data and their impact on the decisions of these models, alongside developing mitigation strategies. This research largely targets well-known biases related to gender, race, ethnicity, and language. However, it is clear that LLMs are also affected by other, less obvious implicit biases. The complex and often opaque nature of these models makes detecting such biases challenging, yet this is crucial due to their potential negative impact in various applications. In this paper, we explore new avenues for detecting these unanticipated biases in LLMs, focusing specifically on Uncertainty Quantification and Explainable AI methods. These approaches aim to assess the certainty of model decisions and to make the internal decision-making processes of LLMs more transparent, thereby identifying and understanding biases that are not immediately apparent. Through this research, we aim to contribute to the development of fairer and more transparent AI systems.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 45 of its 62 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Apr 2024.
Builds on
45 of 62 references.
References · 45
- 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,599
- 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,555
- 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,708
- 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,070
- 2015Dropout as a Bayesian Approximation: Representing Model Uncertainty in Deep Learningcited by 4,448
- 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,917
- 2017Interpretability Beyond Feature Attribution: Quantitative Testing with Concept Activation Vectors (TCAV)cited by 1,319
- 2016Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddingscited by 1,312
- 2023LIMA: Less Is More for Alignmentcited by 1,100
- 2017Counterfactual Explanations without Opening the Black Box: Automated Decisions and the GDPRcited by 1,089
- 2023Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMscited by 974
- 2020Language (Technology) is Power: A Critical Survey of "Bias" in NLPcited by 956
33 more
- 2019Attention is not Explanationcited by 929
- 2020StereoSet: Measuring stereotypical bias in pretrained language modelscited by 924
- 2016Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biasescited by 901
- 2018Evidential Deep Learning to Quantify Classification Uncertaintycited by 732
- 2023Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 639
- 2018Accurate Uncertainties for Deep Learning Using Calibrated Regressioncited by 422
- 2019On Measuring Social Biases in Sentence Encoderscited by 398
- 2023Larger language models do in-context learning differentlycited by 394
- 2023Explainability for Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 333
- 2015Explaining NonLinear Classification Decisions with Deep Taylor Decompositioncited by 250
- 2020Measuring and Reducing Gendered Correlations in Pre-trained Modelscited by 224
- 2021Polyjuice: Generating Counterfactuals for Explaining, Evaluating, and Improving Modelscited by 222
- 2022Towards Understanding Chain-of-Thought Prompting: An Empirical Study of What Matterscited by 222
- 2015Visualizing and Understanding Neural Models in NLPcited by 200
- 2019Counterfactual Data Augmentation for Mitigating Gender Stereotypes in Languages with Rich Morphologycited by 200
- 2023"Kelly is a Warm Person, Joseph is a Role Model": Gender Biases in LLM-Generated Reference Letterscited by 199
- 2019A Framework for Understanding Sources of Harm throughout the Machine Learning Life Cyclecited by 193
- 2020Detecting Emergent Intersectional Biases: Contextualized Word Embeddings Contain a Distribution of Human-like Biasescited by 167
- 2022Text and Patterns: For Effective Chain of Thought, It Takes Two to Tangocited by 128
- 2018What Is One Grain of Sand in the Desert? Analyzing Individual Neurons in Deep NLP Modelscited by 124
- 2018Identifying and Controlling Important Neurons in Neural Machine Translationcited by 111
- 2020Perturbed Masking: Parameter-free Probing for Analyzing and Interpreting BERTcited by 109
- 2021On the Pitfalls of Analyzing Individual Neurons in Language Modelscited by 62
- 2020Greedy Policy Search: A Simple Baseline for Learnable Test-Time Augmentationcited by 61
- 2020Learning Loss for Test-Time Augmentationcited by 56
- 2023Towards Understanding In-Context Learning with Contrastive Demonstrations and Saliency Mapscited by 35
- 2023Analyzing Chain-of-Thought Prompting in Large Language Models via Gradient-based Feature Attributionscited by 32
- 2021Do Syntactic Probes Probe Syntax? Experiments with Jabberwocky Probingcited by 28
- 2023Mimic-IV-ICD: A new benchmark for eXtreme MultiLabel Classificationcited by 19
- 2023Predictive Uncertainty-based Bias Mitigation in Rankingcited by 7
- 2021A fuzzy-rough uncertainty measure to discover bias encoded explicitly or implicitly in features of structured pattern classification datasetscited by 5
- 2023How Prevalent is Gender Bias in ChatGPT? -- Exploring German and English ChatGPT Responsescited by 5
- 2022Bias Challenges in Counterfactual Data Augmentationcited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 2; 2025: 1.
3 papers.