mFARM: Towards Multi-Faceted Fairness Assessment based on HARMs in Clinical Decision Support
The deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs) in high-stakes medical settings poses a critical AI alignment challenge, as models can inherit and amplify societal biases, leading to significant disparities. Existing fairness evaluation methods fall short in these contexts as they typically use simplistic metrics that overlook the multi-dimensional nature of medical harms. This also promotes models that are fair only because they are clinically inert, defaulting to safe but potentially inaccurate outputs. To address this gap, our contributions are mainly two-fold: first, we construct two large-scale, controlled benchmarks (ED-Triage and Opioid Analgesic Recommendation) from MIMIC-IV, comprising over 50,000 prompts with twelve race x gender variants and three context tiers. Second, we propose a multi-metric framework - Multi-faceted Fairness Assessment based on hARMs ($mFARM$) to audit fairness for three distinct dimensions of disparity (Allocational, Stability, and Latent) and aggregate them into an $mFARM$ score. We also present an aggregated Fairness-Accuracy Balance (FAB) score to benchmark and observe trade-offs between fairness and prediction accuracy. We empirically evaluate four open-source LLMs (Mistral-7B, BioMistral-7B, Qwen-2.5-7B, Bio-LLaMA3-8B) and their finetuned versions under quantization and context variations. Our findings showcase that the proposed $mFARM$ metrics capture subtle biases more effectively under various settings. We find that most models maintain robust performance in terms of $mFARM$ score across varying levels of quantization but deteriorate significantly when the context is reduced. Our benchmarks and evaluation code are publicly released to enhance research in aligned AI for healthcare.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
What Is the Point of Equality in Machine Learning Fairness? Beyond Equality of Opportunity
Fairness in machine learning (ML) has become a rapidly growing area of research. But why, in the first place, is unfairness in ML morally wrong? And why should we care about improving fairness? Most fair-ML research impl…
FairnessPhilosophyMeasuring Representational Harms in Image Captioning
Previous work has largely considered the fairness of image captioning systems through the underspecified lens of "bias." In contrast, we present a set of techniques for measuring five types of representational harms, as …
FairnessImage CaptioningFairness Indicators for Systematic Assessments of Visual Feature Extractors
Does everyone equally benefit from computer vision systems? Answers to this question become more and more important as computer vision systems are deployed at large scale, and can spark major concerns when they exhibit v…
FairnessFairPrism: Evaluating Fairness-Related Harms in Text Generation
It is critical to measure and mitigate fairness- related harms caused by AI text generation systems, including stereotyping and demeaning harms. To that end, we introduce FairPrism, a dataset of 5,000 examples of AI-gene…
FairnessText GenerationFairness in representation: quantifying stereotyping as a representational harm
While harms of allocation have been increasingly studied as part of the subfield of algorithmic fairness, harms of representation have received considerably less attention. In this paper, we formalize two notions of ster…
BIG-bench Machine LearningFairness