Gaps Between Research and Practice When Measuring Representational Harms Caused by LLM-Based Systems

Fuente: arXiv
Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Harvey, Emma, Sheng, Emily, Blodgett, Su Lin, Chouldechova, Alexandra, Garcia-Gathright, Jean, Olteanu, Alexandra, Wallach, Hanna
Format: Preprint
Published: 2024
Subjects:
Online Access:
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1866915032225284096
author Harvey, Emma
Sheng, Emily
Blodgett, Su Lin
Chouldechova, Alexandra
Garcia-Gathright, Jean
Olteanu, Alexandra
Wallach, Hanna
author_facet Harvey, Emma
Sheng, Emily
Blodgett, Su Lin
Chouldechova, Alexandra
Garcia-Gathright, Jean
Olteanu, Alexandra
Wallach, Hanna
contents To facilitate the measurement of representational harms caused by large language model (LLM)-based systems, the NLP research community has produced and made publicly available numerous measurement instruments, including tools, datasets, metrics, benchmarks, annotation instructions, and other techniques. However, the research community lacks clarity about whether and to what extent these instruments meet the needs of practitioners tasked with developing and deploying LLM-based systems in the real world, and how these instruments could be improved. Via a series of semi-structured interviews with practitioners in a variety of roles in different organizations, we identify four types of challenges that prevent practitioners from effectively using publicly available instruments for measuring representational harms caused by LLM-based systems: (1) challenges related to using publicly available measurement instruments; (2) challenges related to doing measurement in practice; (3) challenges arising from measurement tasks involving LLM-based systems; and (4) challenges specific to measuring representational harms. Our goal is to advance the development of instruments for measuring representational harms that are well-suited to practitioner needs, thus better facilitating the responsible development and deployment of LLM-based systems.
format Preprint
id arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2411_15662
institution arXiv
publishDate 2024
record_format arxiv
spellingShingle Gaps Between Research and Practice When Measuring Representational Harms Caused by LLM-Based Systems
Harvey, Emma
Sheng, Emily
Blodgett, Su Lin
Chouldechova, Alexandra
Garcia-Gathright, Jean
Olteanu, Alexandra
Wallach, Hanna
Computers and Society
To facilitate the measurement of representational harms caused by large language model (LLM)-based systems, the NLP research community has produced and made publicly available numerous measurement instruments, including tools, datasets, metrics, benchmarks, annotation instructions, and other techniques. However, the research community lacks clarity about whether and to what extent these instruments meet the needs of practitioners tasked with developing and deploying LLM-based systems in the real world, and how these instruments could be improved. Via a series of semi-structured interviews with practitioners in a variety of roles in different organizations, we identify four types of challenges that prevent practitioners from effectively using publicly available instruments for measuring representational harms caused by LLM-based systems: (1) challenges related to using publicly available measurement instruments; (2) challenges related to doing measurement in practice; (3) challenges arising from measurement tasks involving LLM-based systems; and (4) challenges specific to measuring representational harms. Our goal is to advance the development of instruments for measuring representational harms that are well-suited to practitioner needs, thus better facilitating the responsible development and deployment of LLM-based systems.
title Gaps Between Research and Practice When Measuring Representational Harms Caused by LLM-Based Systems
topic Computers and Society
url https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.15662