Share your thoughts, 1 month free Claude Pro on usSee more
WorkDL logo mark

Bring Your Own Prompts: Use-Case-Specific Bias and Fairness Evaluation for LLMs

About

Bias and fairness risks in Large Language Models (LLMs) vary substantially across deployment contexts, yet existing approaches lack systematic guidance for selecting appropriate evaluation metrics. We present a decision framework that maps LLM use cases, characterized by a model and population of prompts, to relevant bias and fairness metrics based on task type, whether prompts contain protected attribute mentions, and stakeholder priorities. Our framework addresses toxicity, stereotyping, counterfactual unfairness, and allocational harms, and introduces novel metrics based on stereotype classifiers and counterfactual adaptations of text similarity measures. We release an open-source Python library, \texttt{langfair}, for practical adoption. Extensive experiments on use cases across five LLMs and five prompt populations demonstrate that fairness risks cannot be reliably assessed from benchmark performance alone: results on one prompt dataset likely overstate or understate risks for another, underscoring that fairness evaluation must be grounded in the specific deployment context.

Dylan Bouchard• 2024

Related benchmarks

TaskDatasetResultRank
Counterfactual FairnessRealToxicityPrompts RTP-C--
5
Counterfactual FairnessRealToxicityPrompts RTP-N--
5
Counterfactual FairnessDialogSum (DS)--
5
Counterfactual FairnessDecodingTrust Stereotype--
5
Counterfactual FairnessCounterfactual Open-Ended (Open-CF)--
5
Stereotyping EvaluationRealToxicityPrompts RTP-C Toxic--
5
Stereotyping EvaluationRealToxicityPrompts Non-toxic--
5
Stereotyping EvaluationDialogSum (DS)--
5
Stereotyping EvaluationDecodingTrust Stereotype (DTS)--
5
Stereotyping EvaluationCounterfactual Open-Ended (OCF)--
5
Showing 10 of 14 rows

Other info

Follow for update