Do LLMs exhibit demographic parity in responses to queries about Human Rights?
This research describes a novel approach to evaluating hedging behaviour in large language models (LLMs), specifically in the context of human rights as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Hedging and non-affirmation are behaviours that express ambiguity or a lack of clear endorsement on specific statements. These behaviours are undesirable in certain contexts, such as queries about whether different groups are entitled to specific human rights; since all people are entitled to human rights. Here, we present the first systematic attempt to measure these behaviours in the context of human rights, with a particular focus on between-group comparisons. To this end, we design a novel prompt set on human rights in the context of different national or social identities. We develop metrics to capture hedging and non-affirmation behaviours and then measure whether LLMs exhibit demographic parity when responding to the queries. We present results on three leading LLMs and find that all models exhibit some demographic disparities in how they attribute human rights between different identity groups. Futhermore, there is high correlation between different models in terms of how disparity is distributed amongst identities, with identities that have high disparity in one model also facing high disparity in both the other models. While baseline rates of hedging and non-affirmation differ, these disparities are consistent across queries that vary in ambiguity and they are robust across variations of the precise query wording. Our findings highlight the need for work to explicitly align LLMs to human rights principles, and to ensure that LLMs endorse the human rights of all groups equally.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Tasks
AttributeMethods 이 논문이 사용한 방법론
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
AI in Mental Health: Emotional and Sentiment Analysis of Large Language Models' Responses to Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Queries
Depression, anxiety, and stress are widespread mental health concerns that increasingly drive individuals to seek information from Large Language Models (LLMs). This study investigates how eight LLMs (Claude Sonnet, Copi…
Sentiment AnalysisPrompt Fairness: Sub-group Disparities in LLMs
Large Language Models (LLMs), though shown to be effective in many applications, can vary significantly in their response quality. In this paper, we investigate this problem of prompt fairness: specifically, the phrasing…
Measuring Stereotype and Deviation Biases in Large Language Models
Large language models (LLMs) are widely applied across diverse domains, raising concerns about their limitations and potential risks. In this study, we investigate two types of bias that LLMs may display: stereotype bias…
An Analysis of Large Language Models for Simulating User Responses in Surveys
Using Large Language Models (LLMs) to simulate user opinions has received growing attention. Yet LLMs, especially trained with reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), are known to exhibit biases toward dominan…
Reinforcement LearningQuestion AnsweringExplanation Fairness in Large Language Models: An Empirical Analysis of Disparities in How LLMs Justify Decisions Across Demographic Groups
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed not only to make decisions but to explain them. While AI decision fairness has been studied extensively, the fairness of AI explanations (whether LLMs justify decisi…