0
0
Unveiling and Mitigating Bias in Mental Health Analysis with Large Language Models
Overview
- This paper explores the potential for bias in using large language models (LLMs) for mental health analysis and aims to unveil and mitigate such biases.
- The researchers investigated the performance of LLMs in identifying mental health conditions and examined the impact of demographic factors, such as gender and race, on the model's predictions.
- The paper provides insights into the limitations of LLMs in this domain and offers strategies to improve the fairness and reliability of these models.
Plain English Explanation
The paper investigates the potential for bias when using large language models (LLMs) to analyze mental health. LLMs are artificial intelligence systems that can process and understand human language. The researchers wanted to see if these models might make unfair or inaccurate predictions about people's mental health based on factors like their gender or race.
The researchers tested LLMs on the task of identifying mental health conditions. They found that the models' performance could be affected by the person's demographic background. For example, the models might be less accurate at identifying mental health issues for certain genders or racial groups.
The paper provides insights into the limitations of using LLMs for mental health analysis. It also suggests ways to make these models more fair and reliable, such as by training them on more diverse data or adjusting their algorithms to reduce bias. The goal is to ensure that these powerful AI systems can be used to help people's mental health without discriminating or making unfair assumptions.
Technical Explanation
The paper explores the potential for bias in using large language models (LLMs) for mental health analysis. The researchers investigated the performance of LLMs in identifying mental health conditions and examined the impact of demographic factors, such as gender and race, on the model's predictions.
The team conducted experiments using several state-of-the-art LLMs, including BERT, GPT-3, and XLNET, to assess their performance on mental health classification tasks. They analyzed the models' accuracy, calibration, and fairness across different demographic groups.
The results revealed that while LLMs can achieve strong performance on mental health analysis tasks, their predictions can be influenced by demographic factors. For example, the models tended to be less accurate in identifying mental health conditions for certain gender and racial groups. The researchers also found evidence of systematic biases in the models' confidences and error rates.
To mitigate these biases, the paper proposes several strategies, such as debiasing the training data, adjusting the model architecture, and developing fairness-aware fine-tuning techniques. The researchers also highlight the importance of thorough evaluation and monitoring to ensure the fairness and reliability of LLMs in mental health applications.
Critical Analysis
The paper's findings highlight the need for careful consideration of bias and fairness when deploying LLMs in sensitive domains like mental health analysis. While the researchers provide valuable insights and mitigation strategies, the study has some limitations.
First, the paper focuses on a limited set of LLMs and mental health tasks, and the findings may not generalize to other models or applications. Additionally, the paper does not explore the root causes of the observed biases, which could be related to the training data, model architecture, or broader societal biases.
Furthermore, the paper does not address the potential challenges in implementing the proposed mitigation strategies, such as the availability of diverse training data or the computational resources required for fairness-aware fine-tuning. These practical considerations are crucial for the successful deployment of unbiased LLMs in real-world mental health applications.
Future research should delve deeper into the underlying mechanisms of bias in LLMs and explore more comprehensive strategies to address these issues. Additionally, collaborations between AI researchers, mental health experts, and policymakers could help ensure the ethical and equitable use of these technologies in mental health care.
Conclusion
This paper highlights the importance of addressing bias and fairness concerns when using large language models (LLMs) for mental health analysis. The researchers found that the performance of LLMs can be influenced by demographic factors, leading to biased predictions and potentially unfair outcomes.
The study provides valuable insights into the limitations of LLMs in this domain and offers strategies to mitigate these biases, such as debiasing the training data and developing fairness-aware fine-tuning techniques. These findings have significant implications for the development and deployment of AI-powered mental health tools, underscoring the need for continued research and collaboration to ensure the ethical and equitable use of these technologies.
As LLMs become increasingly integrated into various domains, including mental health, it is crucial to proactively address the challenges of bias and fairness to unlock the full potential of these powerful AI systems while safeguarding the wellbeing and rights of all individuals.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
0
Related Papers
💬
0
Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey
Isabel O. Gallegos, Ryan A. Rossi, Joe Barrow, Md Mehrab Tanjim, Sungchul Kim, Franck Dernoncourt, Tong Yu, Ruiyi Zhang, Nesreen K. Ahmed
Rapid advancements of large language models (LLMs) have enabled the processing, understanding, and generation of human-like text, with increasing integration into systems that touch our social sphere. Despite this success, these models can learn, perpetuate, and amplify harmful social biases. In this paper, we present a comprehensive survey of bias evaluation and mitigation techniques for LLMs. We first consolidate, formalize, and expand notions of social bias and fairness in natural language processing, defining distinct facets of harm and introducing several desiderata to operationalize fairness for LLMs. We then unify the literature by proposing three intuitive taxonomies, two for bias evaluation, namely metrics and datasets, and one for mitigation. Our first taxonomy of metrics for bias evaluation disambiguates the relationship between metrics and evaluation datasets, and organizes metrics by the different levels at which they operate in a model: embeddings, probabilities, and generated text. Our second taxonomy of datasets for bias evaluation categorizes datasets by their structure as counterfactual inputs or prompts, and identifies the targeted harms and social groups; we also release a consolidation of publicly-available datasets for improved access. Our third taxonomy of techniques for bias mitigation classifies methods by their intervention during pre-processing, in-training, intra-processing, and post-processing, with granular subcategories that elucidate research trends. Finally, we identify open problems and challenges for future work. Synthesizing a wide range of recent research, we aim to provide a clear guide of the existing literature that empowers researchers and practitioners to better understand and prevent the propagation of bias in LLMs.
Read more7/16/2024
0
How Can We Diagnose and Treat Bias in Large Language Models for Clinical Decision-Making?
Kenza Benkirane, Jackie Kay, Maria Perez-Ortiz
Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have positioned them as powerful tools for clinical decision-making, with rapidly expanding applications in healthcare. However, concerns about bias remain a significant challenge in the clinical implementation of LLMs, particularly regarding gender and ethnicity. This research investigates the evaluation and mitigation of bias in LLMs applied to complex clinical cases, focusing on gender and ethnicity biases. We introduce a novel Counterfactual Patient Variations (CPV) dataset derived from the JAMA Clinical Challenge. Using this dataset, we built a framework for bias evaluation, employing both Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) and corresponding explanations. We explore prompting with eight LLMs and fine-tuning as debiasing methods. Our findings reveal that addressing social biases in LLMs requires a multidimensional approach as mitigating gender bias can occur while introducing ethnicity biases, and that gender bias in LLM embeddings varies significantly across medical specialities. We demonstrate that evaluating both MCQ response and explanation processes is crucial, as correct responses can be based on biased textit{reasoning}. We provide a framework for evaluating LLM bias in real-world clinical cases, offer insights into the complex nature of bias in these models, and present strategies for bias mitigation.
Read more10/23/2024
🧠
0
With a Grain of SALT: Are LLMs Fair Across Social Dimensions?
Samee Arif, Zohaib Khan, Agha Ali Raza, Awais Athar
This paper presents an analysis of biases in open-source Large Language Models (LLMs) across various genders, religions, and races. We introduce a methodology for generating a bias detection dataset using seven bias triggers: General Debate, Positioned Debate, Career Advice, Story Generation, Problem-Solving, Cover-Letter Writing, and CV Generation. We use GPT-4o to generate a diverse set of prompts for each trigger across various genders, religious and racial groups. We evaluate models from Llama and Gemma family on the generated dataset. We anonymise the LLM-generated text associated with each group using GPT-4o-mini and do a pairwise comparison using GPT-4o-as-a-Judge. To quantify bias in the LLM-generated text we use the number of wins and losses in the pairwise comparison. Our analysis spans three languages, English, German, and Arabic to explore how language influences bias manifestation. Our findings reveal that LLMs exhibit strong polarization toward certain groups across each category, with a notable consistency observed across models. However, when switching languages, variations and anomalies emerge, often attributable to cultural cues and contextual differences.
Read more10/17/2024
💬
0
Bias in Large Language Models: Origin, Evaluation, and Mitigation
Yufei Guo, Muzhe Guo, Juntao Su, Zhou Yang, Mengqiu Zhu, Hongfei Li, Mengyang Qiu, Shuo Shuo Liu
Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized natural language processing, but their susceptibility to biases poses significant challenges. This comprehensive review examines the landscape of bias in LLMs, from its origins to current mitigation strategies. We categorize biases as intrinsic and extrinsic, analyzing their manifestations in various NLP tasks. The review critically assesses a range of bias evaluation methods, including data-level, model-level, and output-level approaches, providing researchers with a robust toolkit for bias detection. We further explore mitigation strategies, categorizing them into pre-model, intra-model, and post-model techniques, highlighting their effectiveness and limitations. Ethical and legal implications of biased LLMs are discussed, emphasizing potential harms in real-world applications such as healthcare and criminal justice. By synthesizing current knowledge on bias in LLMs, this review contributes to the ongoing effort to develop fair and responsible AI systems. Our work serves as a comprehensive resource for researchers and practitioners working towards understanding, evaluating, and mitigating bias in LLMs, fostering the development of more equitable AI technologies.
Read more11/19/2024