FairBelief - Assessing Harmful Beliefs in Language Models

Language Models (LMs) have been shown to inherit undesired biases that might hurt minorities and underrepresented groups if such systems were integrated into real-world applications without careful fairness auditing. This paper proposes FairBelief, an analytical approach to capture and assess beliefs, i.e., propositions that an LM may embed with different degrees of confidence and that covertly influence its predictions. With FairBelief, we leverage prompting to study the behavior of several state-of-the-art LMs across different previously neglected axes, such as model scale and likelihood, assessing predictions on a fairness dataset specifically designed to quantify LMs' outputs' hurtfulness. Finally, we conclude with an in-depth qualitative assessment of the beliefs emitted by the models. We apply FairBelief to English LMs, revealing that, although these architectures enable high performances on diverse natural language processing tasks, they show hurtful beliefs about specific genders. Interestingly, training procedure and dataset, model scale, and architecture induce beliefs of different degrees of hurtfulness.

Social Bias Probing: Fairness Benchmarking for Language Models

Large language models have been shown to encode a variety of social biases, which carries the risk of downstream harms. While the impact of these biases has been recognized, prior methods for bias evaluation have been limited to binary association tests on small datasets, offering a constrained view of the nature of societal biases within language models. In this paper, we propose an original framework for probing language models for societal biases. We collect a probing dataset to analyze language models' general associations, as well as along the axes of societal categories, identities, and stereotypes. To this end, we leverage a novel perplexity-based fairness score. We curate a large-scale benchmarking dataset addressing drawbacks and limitations of existing fairness collections, expanding to a variety of different identities and stereotypes. When comparing our methodology with prior work, we demonstrate that biases within language models are more nuanced than previously acknowledged. In agreement with recent findings, we find that larger model variants exhibit a higher degree of bias. Moreover, we expose how identities expressing different religions lead to the most pronounced disparate treatments across all models.