Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Assessing Bias in Metric Models for LLM Open-Ended Generation Bias Benchmarks

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2410.11059 v1 pith:2SORRBDH submitted 2024-10-14 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords biasbiasesbenchmarksmodelscounterfactualsdemographicmetricopen-generation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Open-generation bias benchmarks evaluate social biases in Large Language Models (LLMs) by analyzing their outputs. However, the classifiers used in analysis often have inherent biases, leading to unfair conclusions. This study examines such biases in open-generation benchmarks like BOLD and SAGED. Using the MGSD dataset, we conduct two experiments. The first uses counterfactuals to measure prediction variations across demographic groups by altering stereotype-related prefixes. The second applies explainability tools (SHAP) to validate that the observed biases stem from these counterfactuals. Results reveal unequal treatment of demographic descriptors, calling for more robust bias metric models.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Real-World Gaps in AI Governance Research

    cs.AI 2025-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Corporate AI safety research is dominated by pre-deployment alignment and evaluation work, while high-risk deployment topics such as medical error, misinformation, bias, behavioral design, and copyright are measured t...

Pith tools