Yinong Oliver Wang

Yinong Oliver Wang, Nivedha Sivakumar, Falaah Arif Khan et al.

The recent rapid adoption of large language models (LLMs) highlights the critical need for benchmarking their fairness. Conventional fairness metrics, which focus on discrete accuracy-based evaluations (i.e., prediction correctness), fail to capture the implicit impact of model uncertainty (e.g., higher model confidence about one group over another despite similar accuracy). To address this limitation, we propose an uncertainty-aware fairness metric, UCerF, to enable a fine-grained evaluation of model fairness that is more reflective of the internal bias in model decisions compared to conventional fairness measures. Furthermore, observing data size, diversity, and clarity issues in current datasets, we introduce a new gender-occupation fairness evaluation dataset with 31,756 samples for co-reference resolution, offering a more diverse and suitable dataset for evaluating modern LLMs. We establish a benchmark, using our metric and dataset, and apply it to evaluate the behavior of ten open-source LLMs. For example, Mistral-7B exhibits suboptimal fairness due to high confidence in incorrect predictions, a detail overlooked by Equalized Odds but captured by UCerF. Overall, our proposed LLM benchmark, which evaluates fairness with uncertainty awareness, paves the way for developing more transparent and accountable AI systems.

Falaah Arif Khan, Nivedha Sivakumar, Yinong Oliver Wang et al.

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved impressive performance, leading to their widespread adoption as decision-support tools in resource-constrained contexts like hiring and admissions. There is, however, scientific consensus that AI systems can reflect and exacerbate societal biases, raising concerns about identity-based harm when used in critical social contexts. Prior work has laid a solid foundation for assessing bias in LLMs by evaluating demographic disparities in different language reasoning tasks. In this work, we extend single-axis fairness evaluations to examine intersectional bias, recognizing that when multiple axes of discrimination intersect, they create distinct patterns of disadvantage. We create a new benchmark called WinoIdentity by augmenting the WinoBias dataset with 25 demographic markers across 10 attributes, including age, nationality, and race, intersected with binary gender, yielding 245,700 prompts to evaluate 50 distinct bias patterns. Focusing on harms of omission due to underrepresentation, we investigate bias through the lens of uncertainty and propose a group (un)fairness metric called Coreference Confidence Disparity which measures whether models are more or less confident for some intersectional identities than others. We evaluate five recently published LLMs and find confidence disparities as high as 40% along various demographic attributes including body type, sexual orientation and socio-economic status, with models being most uncertain about doubly-disadvantaged identities in anti-stereotypical settings. Surprisingly, coreference confidence decreases even for hegemonic or privileged markers, indicating that the recent impressive performance of LLMs is more likely due to memorization than logical reasoning. Notably, these are two independent failures in value alignment and validity that can compound to cause social harm.