Developing Safe and Responsible Large Language Model : Can We Balance Bias Reduction and Language Understanding in Large Language Models?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) have advanced various Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks, such as text generation and translation, among others. However, these models often generate texts that can perpetuate biases. Existing approaches to mitigate these biases usually compromise knowledge retention. This study explores whether LLMs can produce safe, unbiased outputs without sacrificing knowledge or comprehension. We introduce the Safe and Responsible Large Language Model (\textbf{SR}$_{\text{LLM}}$), which has been instruction fine-tuned atop of a safe fine-tuned auto-regressive decoder-only LLM to reduce biases in generated texts. We developed a specialized dataset with examples of unsafe and corresponding safe variations to train \textbf{SR}$_{\text{LLM}}$ to identify and correct biased text. Experiments on our specialized dataset and out-of-distribution test sets reveal that \textbf{SR}$_{\text{LLM}}$ effectively reduces biases while preserving knowledge integrity. This performance surpasses that of traditional fine-tuning of smaller language models and base LLMs that merely reply on prompting techniques. Our findings demonstrate that instruction fine-tuning on custom datasets tailored for tasks such as debiasing is a highly effective strategy for minimizing bias in LLM while preserving their inherent knowledge and capabilities. The code and dataset are accessible at \href{https://github.com/shainarazavi/Safe-Responsible-LLM}{SR-LLM}
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".