Table of Contents
Fetching ...

No Free Lunch: Retrieval-Augmented Generation Undermines Fairness in LLMs, Even for Vigilant Users

Mengxuan Hu, Hongyi Wu, Zihan Guan, Ronghang Zhu, Dongliang Guo, Daiqing Qi, Sheng Li

TL;DR

This study comprehensively investigates the fairness costs associated with RAG by proposing a practical three-level threat model from the perspective of user awareness of fairness and demonstrates that fairness alignment can be easily undermined through RAG without the need for fine-tuning or retraining.

Abstract

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is widely adopted for its effectiveness and cost-efficiency in mitigating hallucinations and enhancing the domain-specific generation capabilities of large language models (LLMs). However, is this effectiveness and cost-efficiency truly a free lunch? In this study, we comprehensively investigate the fairness costs associated with RAG by proposing a practical three-level threat model from the perspective of user awareness of fairness. Specifically, varying levels of user fairness awareness result in different degrees of fairness censorship on the external dataset. We examine the fairness implications of RAG using uncensored, partially censored, and fully censored datasets. Our experiments demonstrate that fairness alignment can be easily undermined through RAG without the need for fine-tuning or retraining. Even with fully censored and supposedly unbiased external datasets, RAG can lead to biased outputs. Our findings underscore the limitations of current alignment methods in the context of RAG-based LLMs and highlight the urgent need for new strategies to ensure fairness. We propose potential mitigations and call for further research to develop robust fairness safeguards in RAG-based LLMs.

No Free Lunch: Retrieval-Augmented Generation Undermines Fairness in LLMs, Even for Vigilant Users

TL;DR

This study comprehensively investigates the fairness costs associated with RAG by proposing a practical three-level threat model from the perspective of user awareness of fairness and demonstrates that fairness alignment can be easily undermined through RAG without the need for fine-tuning or retraining.

Abstract

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is widely adopted for its effectiveness and cost-efficiency in mitigating hallucinations and enhancing the domain-specific generation capabilities of large language models (LLMs). However, is this effectiveness and cost-efficiency truly a free lunch? In this study, we comprehensively investigate the fairness costs associated with RAG by proposing a practical three-level threat model from the perspective of user awareness of fairness. Specifically, varying levels of user fairness awareness result in different degrees of fairness censorship on the external dataset. We examine the fairness implications of RAG using uncensored, partially censored, and fully censored datasets. Our experiments demonstrate that fairness alignment can be easily undermined through RAG without the need for fine-tuning or retraining. Even with fully censored and supposedly unbiased external datasets, RAG can lead to biased outputs. Our findings underscore the limitations of current alignment methods in the context of RAG-based LLMs and highlight the urgent need for new strategies to ensure fairness. We propose potential mitigations and call for further research to develop robust fairness safeguards in RAG-based LLMs.

Paper Structure

This paper contains 24 sections, 3 equations, 13 figures, 3 tables, 1 algorithm.

Figures (13)

  • Figure 1: A diagrammatic illustration of how varying levels of fairness awareness among RAG users might cause LLMs to produce differing degrees of biased responses.
  • Figure 2: Fairness performance of LLMs across different unfairness rates in classification task.
  • Figure 3: The first two sub-figures illustrate the fairness performance of LLMs across different unfairness rates in classification task. The last two sub-figures presents the accuracy across different LLMs.
  • Figure 4: Comparison of the number of no response answers on BBQ across different models.
  • Figure 5: Comparison of fairness degradation from the no-RAG baseline to RAG with all unfair samples across various bias categories on BBQ dataset.
  • ...and 8 more figures

Theorems & Definitions (3)

  • Remark 4.1
  • Remark 4.2
  • Remark 4.3