MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393924586 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.01399

Developing Safe and Responsible Large Language Model : Can We Balance Bias Reduction and Language Understanding in Large Language Models?

2024· preprint· en· W4393924586 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Shaina Raza, Oluwanifemi Bamgbose, Shardul Ghuge, Fatemeh Tavakoli, Deepak John Reji

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGovernment of CanadaCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsComputer scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.007
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.130
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.105 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207