mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Bring Your Own Prompts: Use-Case-Specific Bias and Fairness Evaluation for LLMs

arXiv 2407.10853 ↗First posted 15 Jul 2024cs.CL cs.AIcited by 9

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Bias and fairness risks in Large Language Models (LLMs) vary substantially across deployment contexts, yet existing approaches lack systematic guidance for selecting appropriate evaluation metrics. We present a decision framework that maps LLM use cases, characterized by a model and population of prompts, to relevant bias and fairness metrics based on task type, whether prompts contain protected attribute mentions, and stakeholder priorities. Our framework addresses toxicity, stereotyping, counterfactual unfairness, and allocational harms, and introduces novel metrics based on stereotype classifiers and counterfactual adaptations of text similarity measures. We release an open-source Python library, textttlangfair, for practical adoption. Extensive experiments on use cases across five LLMs and five prompt populations demonstrate that fairness risks cannot be reliably assessed from benchmark performance alone: results on one prompt dataset likely overstate or understate risks for another, underscoring that fairness evaluation must be grounded in the specific deployment context.

Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 27 of its 48 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Jul 2024.

Builds on

27 of 48 references.

References · 27

  1. 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,372
  2. 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,007
  3. 2020RealToxicityPrompts: Evaluating Neural Toxic Degeneration in Language Modelscited by 1,255
  4. 2020StereoSet: Measuring stereotypical bias in pretrained language modelscited by 924
  5. 2014Certifying and removing disparate impactcited by 715
  6. 2020CrowS-Pairs: A Challenge Dataset for Measuring Social Biases in Masked Language Modelscited by 710
  7. 2021BBQ: A Hand-Built Bias Benchmark for Question Answeringcited by 701
  8. 2018Gender Bias in Coreference Resolution: Evaluation and Debiasing Methodscited by 659
  9. 2023DecodingTrust: A Comprehensive Assessment of Trustworthiness in GPT Modelscited by 518
  10. 2018Gender Bias in Coreference Resolutioncited by 442
  11. 2021BOLD: Dataset and Metrics for Measuring Biases in Open-Ended Language Generationcited by 412
  12. 2018AI Fairness 360: An Extensible Toolkit for Detecting, Understanding, and Mitigating Unwanted Algorithmic Biascited by 319
15 more
  1. 2019Identifying and Reducing Gender Bias in Word-Level Language Modelscited by 214
  2. 2021RedditBias: A Real-World Resource for Bias Evaluation and Debiasing of Conversational Language Modelscited by 149
  3. 2019Reducing Sentiment Bias in Language Models via Counterfactual Evaluationcited by 148
  4. 2020Intrinsic Bias Metrics Do Not Correlate with Application Biascited by 148
  5. 2018Aequitas: A Bias and Fairness Audit Toolkitcited by 147
  6. 2019Wasserstein Fair Classificationcited by 131
  7. 2019Fairness in Recommendation Ranking through Pairwise Comparisonscited by 127
  8. 2020UnQovering Stereotyping Biases via Underspecified Questionscited by 126
  9. 2023Is ChatGPT Fair for Recommendation? Evaluating Fairness in Large Language Model Recommendationcited by 114
  10. 2022A Survey on the Fairness of Recommender Systemscited by 102
  11. 2021Collecting a Large-Scale Gender Bias Dataset for Coreference Resolution and Machine Translationcited by 62
  12. 2024The Impossibility of Fair LLMscited by 22
  13. 2022An Audit of Misinformation Filter Bubbles on YouTube: Bubble Bursting and Recent Behavior Changescited by 15
  14. 2023Towards Auditing Large Language Models: Improving Text-based Stereotype Detectioncited by 13
  15. 2024A Comprehensive View of the Biases of Toxicity and Sentiment Analysis Methods Towards Utterances with African American English Expressionscited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 6; 2026: 2.

9 papers.