REVIEW 6 cited by
A Multi-LLM Debiasing Framework
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
read the original abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) are powerful tools with the potential to benefit society immensely, yet, they have demonstrated biases that perpetuate societal inequalities. Despite significant advancements in bias mitigation techniques using data augmentation, zero-shot prompting, and model fine-tuning, biases continuously persist, including subtle biases that may elude human detection. Recent research has shown a growing interest in multi-LLM approaches, which have been demonstrated to be effective in improving the quality of reasoning and factuality in LLMs. Building on this approach, we propose a novel multi-LLM debiasing framework aimed at reducing bias in LLMs. Our work is the first to introduce and evaluate two distinct approaches within this framework for debiasing LLMs: a centralized method, where the conversation is facilitated by a single central LLM, and a decentralized method, where all models communicate directly. Our findings reveal that our multi-LLM framework significantly reduces bias in LLMs, outperforming the baseline method across several social groups.
Forward citations
Cited by 6 Pith papers
-
From Charts to Fair Narratives: Uncovering and Mitigating Geo-Economic Biases in Chart-to-Text
Vision-language models produce more positive chart summaries for high-income countries than for middle- or low-income countries, and a simple positive prompt only partly fixes the bias.
-
Scoring, Reasoning, and Selecting the Best! Ensembling Large Language Models via a Peer-Review Process
LLM-PeerReview ensembles LLMs by scoring responses with LLM-as-Judge and selecting the best via averaging or truth inference, beating Smoothie-Global by 6.9-7.3 points on four datasets.
-
Discriminatory Compliance: How LLMs Answer Queries from Protected Groups
State-of-the-art LLMs respond inconsistently to queries from protected-group personas, with some responses omitting key information that should be provided.
-
Be a Partner, not a Bystander in Software Engineering Practice: Bridging the Gaps between Academia and Industry
Survey evidence shows the software engineering community believes academia must shift from bystander to active partner with industry to boost research impact and relevance.
-
A Survey of Scaling in Large Language Model Reasoning
A survey categorizing scaling in LLM reasoning across input size, steps, rounds, training, and future directions, noting that scaling can negatively affect performance.
-
LLMs-as-Judges: A Comprehensive Survey on LLM-based Evaluation Methods
A survey that organizes LLMs-as-judges research into functionality, methodology, applications, meta-evaluation, and limitations.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.