Personalized LLM-generated plain language summaries improve lay readers' comprehension and quality ratings but increase risks of reinforcing biases and introducing hallucinations compared to static expert summaries.
Bias in Large Language Models: Origin, Evaluation, and Mitigation
7 Pith papers cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
7
Pith papers citing it
abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized natural language processing, but their susceptibility to biases poses significant challenges. This comprehensive review examines the landscape of bias in LLMs, from its origins to current mitigation strategies. We categorize biases as intrinsic and extrinsic, analyzing their manifestations in various NLP tasks. The review critically assesses a range of bias evaluation methods, including data-level, model-level, and output-level approaches, providing researchers with a robust toolkit for bias detection. We further explore mitigation strategies, categorizing them into pre-model, intra-model, and post-model techniques, highlighting their effectiveness and limitations. Ethical and legal implications of biased LLMs are discussed, emphasizing potential harms in real-world applications such as healthcare and criminal justice. By synthesizing current knowledge on bias in LLMs, this review contributes to the ongoing effort to develop fair and responsible AI systems. Our work serves as a comprehensive resource for researchers and practitioners working towards understanding, evaluating, and mitigating bias in LLMs, fostering the development of more equitable AI technologies.
citation-role summary
background 2
citation-polarity summary
verdicts
UNVERDICTED 7roles
background 2polarities
background 2representative citing papers
CTLF is a branching-time logic with counting-worlds semantics for verifying fairness in probability distributions over protected attributes, predicting bias bounds, and calculating outputs to remove in generative AI series.
AI peer review systems are vulnerable to prompt injections, prestige biases, assertion strength effects, and contextual poisoning, as demonstrated by a new attack taxonomy and causal experiments on real conference submissions.
LLM safety evaluations for personal advice must test responses against diverse user vulnerability profiles, since context-blind ratings overestimate safety and realistic prompt context does not fix the problem.
Empirical study of eight LLMs finds overuse of popular libraries like NumPy in up to 45% of unnecessary cases and strong default preference for Python even when suboptimal.
Vision-language models for wellbeing assessment exhibit dataset-dependent performance and demographic biases, with explainability interventions providing inconsistent fairness gains at potential accuracy costs.
A survey on LLM-as-a-Judge that reviews reliability strategies, proposes evaluation methods, and introduces a novel benchmark for assessing such systems.
citing papers explorer
-
ReLay: Personalized LLM-Generated Plain-Language Summaries for Better Understanding, but at What Cost?
Personalized LLM-generated plain language summaries improve lay readers' comprehension and quality ratings but increase risks of reinforcing biases and introducing hallucinations compared to static expert summaries.
-
Counting Worlds Branching Time Semantics for post-hoc Bias Mitigation in generative AI
CTLF is a branching-time logic with counting-worlds semantics for verifying fairness in probability distributions over protected attributes, predicting bias bounds, and calculating outputs to remove in generative AI series.
-
When AI reviews science: Can we trust the referee?
AI peer review systems are vulnerable to prompt injections, prestige biases, assertion strength effects, and contextual poisoning, as demonstrated by a new attack taxonomy and causal experiments on real conference submissions.
-
Safe for Whom? Rethinking How We Evaluate the Safety of LLMs for Real Users
LLM safety evaluations for personal advice must test responses against diverse user vulnerability profiles, since context-blind ratings overestimate safety and realistic prompt context does not fix the problem.
-
A Study of LLMs' Preferences for Libraries and Programming Languages
Empirical study of eight LLMs finds overuse of popular libraries like NumPy in up to 45% of unnecessary cases and strong default preference for Python even when suboptimal.
-
FAIR_XAI: Improving Multimodal Foundation Model Fairness via Explainability for Wellbeing Assessment
Vision-language models for wellbeing assessment exhibit dataset-dependent performance and demographic biases, with explainability interventions providing inconsistent fairness gains at potential accuracy costs.
-
A Survey on LLM-as-a-Judge
A survey on LLM-as-a-Judge that reviews reliability strategies, proposes evaluation methods, and introduces a novel benchmark for assessing such systems.