More of the Same: Persistent Representational Harms Under Increased Representation

Jennifer Mickel, Maria De-Arteaga, Liu Leqi, Kevin Tian

Keywords: bias, evaluation, gender bias

Abstract: To recognize and mitigate the harms of generative AI systems, it is crucial to consider whether and how different societal groups are represented by these systems. A critical gap emerges when naively measuring or improving *who* is represented, as this does not consider *how* people are represented. In this work, we develop GAS(P), an evaluation methodology for surfacing distribution-level group representational biases in generated text, tackling the setting where groups are unprompted (i.e., groups are not specified in the input to generative systems). We apply this novel methodology to investigate gendered representations in occupations across state-of-the-art large language models. We show that, even though the gender distribution when models are prompted to generate biographies leads to a large representation of women, even representational biases persist in how different genders are represented. Our evaluation methodology reveals that there are statistically significant distribution-level differences in the word choice used to describe biographies and personas of different genders across occupations, and we show that many of these differences are associated with representational harms and stereotypes. Our empirical findings caution that naively increasing (unprompted) representation may inadvertently proliferate representational biases, and our proposed evaluation methodology enables systematic and rigorous measurement of the problem.

Primary Area: Evaluation (e.g., methodology, meta studies, replicability and validity, human-in-the-loop)

Submission Number: 23985