Search for: All records

Bias amplification is a phenomenon in which models exacerbate biases or stereotypes present in the training data. In this paper, we study bias amplification in the text-to-image domain using Stable Diffusion by comparing gender ratios in training vs. generated images. We find that the model appears to amplify gender-occupation biases found in the training data (LAION) considerably. However, we discover that amplification can be largely attributed to discrepancies between training captions and model prompts. For example, an inherent difference is that captions from the training data often contain explicit gender information while our prompts do not, which leads to a distribution shift and consequently inflates bias measures. Once we account for distributional differences between texts used for training and generation when evaluating amplification, we observe that amplification decreases drastically. Our findings illustrate the challenges of comparing biases in models and their training data, as well as evaluation more broadly, and highlight how confounding factors can impact analyses. 

We introduce UnStereoEval (USE), a novel framework tailored for investigating gender bias in stereotype-free scenarios. USE defines a sentence-level score based on pretraining data statistics to determine if the sentence contain minimal word-gender associations. To systematically benchmark the fairness of popular language models in stereotype-free scenarios, we utilize USE to automatically generate benchmarks without any gender-related language. By leveraging USE's sentence-level score, we also repurpose prior gender bias benchmarks (Winobias and Winogender) for non-stereotypical evaluation. Surprisingly, we find low fairness across all 28 evaluated models. Concretely, models demonstrate fair behavior in only 9%-41% of stereotype-free sentences, suggesting that bias does not solely stem from the presence of gender-related words. These results raise important questions about where underlying model biases come from and highlight the need for more systematic and comprehensive bias evaluation. 

Recently, there has been an increase in efforts to understand how large language models (LLMs) propagate and amplify social biases. Several works have utilized templates for fairness evaluation, which allow researchers to quantify social biases in the absence of test sets with protected attribute labels. While template evaluation can be a convenient and helpful diagnostic tool to understand model deficiencies, it often uses a simplistic and limited set of templates. In this paper, we study whether bias measurements are sensitive to the choice of templates used for benchmarking. Specifically, we investigate the instability of bias measurements by manually modifying templates proposed in previous works in a semantically-preserving manner and measuring bias across these modifications. We find that bias values and resulting conclusions vary considerably across template modifications on four tasks, ranging from an 81% reduction (NLI) to a 162% increase (MLM) in (task-specific) bias measurements. Our results indicate that quantifying fairness in LLMs, as done in current practice, can be brittle and needs to be approached with more care and caution.