Summary of Ceb: Compositional Evaluation Benchmark For Fairness in Large Language Models, by Song Wang et al.
CEB: Compositional Evaluation Benchmark for Fairness in Large Language Models
by Song Wang, Peng Wang, Tong Zhou, Yushun Dong, Zhen Tan, Jundong Li
First submitted to arxiv on: 2 Jul 2024
Categories
- Main: Computation and Language (cs.CL)
- Secondary: Machine Learning (cs.LG)
GrooveSquid.com Paper Summaries
GrooveSquid.com’s goal is to make artificial intelligence research accessible by summarizing AI papers in simpler terms. Each summary below covers the same AI paper, written at different levels of difficulty. The medium difficulty and low difficulty versions are original summaries written by GrooveSquid.com, while the high difficulty version is the paper’s original abstract. Feel free to learn from the version that suits you best!
| Summary difficulty | Written by | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| High | Paper authors | High Difficulty Summary Read the original abstract here |
| Medium | GrooveSquid.com (original content) | Medium Difficulty Summary The proposed Compositional Evaluation Benchmark (CEB) aims to address limitations in existing bias evaluation efforts by covering different types of biases across various social groups and tasks. A newly developed compositional taxonomy is used to characterize each dataset, considering three dimensions: bias types, social groups, and tasks. This comprehensive approach allows for a more detailed understanding of the levels of bias exhibited by Large Language Models (LLMs) and provides guidance for the development of specific bias mitigation methods. |
| Low | GrooveSquid.com (original content) | Low Difficulty Summary This research aims to help us understand how language models can be biased in different ways. Right now, people are worried that these models might spread negative ideas or hurt certain groups of people. To figure out if this is happening, scientists have created different datasets to test language models. But the problem is that each dataset looks at a specific type of bias and uses its own way of measuring how biased it is. This makes it hard to compare results across different datasets and models. The researchers in this paper came up with a new way to group these datasets together, so we can see all the different types of biases and which groups are affected most. They also tested some language models using their new approach and found that the levels of bias vary depending on what type of task or social group is involved. |
