Auditing Large Language Models for Enhanced Text-Based Stereotype Detection and Probing-Based Bias Evaluation

2 Apr 2024  ·  Zekun Wu, Sahan Bulathwela, Maria Perez-Ortiz, Adriano Soares Koshiyama ·

Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly increased their presence in human-facing Artificial Intelligence (AI) applications. However, LLMs could reproduce and even exacerbate stereotypical outputs from training data. This work introduces the Multi-Grain Stereotype (MGS) dataset, encompassing 51,867 instances across gender, race, profession, religion, and stereotypical text, collected by fusing multiple previously publicly available stereotype detection datasets. We explore different machine learning approaches aimed at establishing baselines for stereotype detection, and fine-tune several language models of various architectures and model sizes, presenting in this work a series of stereotypes classifier models for English text trained on MGS. To understand whether our stereotype detectors capture relevant features (aligning with human common sense) we utilise a variety of explanainable AI tools, including SHAP, LIME, and BertViz, and analyse a series of example cases discussing the results. Finally, we develop a series of stereotype elicitation prompts and evaluate the presence of stereotypes in text generation tasks with popular LLMs, using one of our best performing previously presented stereotypes detectors. Our experiments yielded several key findings: i) Training stereotype detectors in a multi-dimension setting yields better results than training multiple single-dimension classifiers.ii) The integrated MGS Dataset enhances both the in-dataset and cross-dataset generalisation ability of stereotype detectors compared to using the datasets separately. iii) There is a reduction in stereotypes in the content generated by GPT Family LLMs with newer versions.

PDF Abstract

Results from the Paper


  Submit results from this paper to get state-of-the-art GitHub badges and help the community compare results to other papers.

Methods