Large Language Models Reflect Human Citation Patterns with a Heightened Citation Bias
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.15739v2
- Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 12:50:49 GMT
- Title: Large Language Models Reflect Human Citation Patterns with a Heightened Citation Bias
- Authors: Andres Algaba, Carmen Mazijn, Vincent Holst, Floriano Tori, Sylvia Wenmackers, Vincent Ginis,
- Abstract summary: Citation practices are crucial in shaping the structure of scientific knowledge.
The emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) like GPT-4 introduces a new dynamic to these practices.
Here, we analyze the characteristics and potential biases of references recommended by GPT-4.
- Score: 1.7812428873698407
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
- Abstract: Citation practices are crucial in shaping the structure of scientific knowledge, yet they are often influenced by contemporary norms and biases. The emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) like GPT-4 introduces a new dynamic to these practices. Interestingly, the characteristics and potential biases of references recommended by LLMs that entirely rely on their parametric knowledge, and not on search or retrieval-augmented generation, remain unexplored. Here, we analyze these characteristics in an experiment using a dataset of 166 papers from AAAI, NeurIPS, ICML, and ICLR, published after GPT-4's knowledge cut-off date, encompassing 3,066 references in total. In our experiment, GPT-4 was tasked with suggesting scholarly references for the anonymized in-text citations within these papers. Our findings reveal a remarkable similarity between human and LLM citation patterns, but with a more pronounced high citation bias in GPT-4, which persists even after controlling for publication year, title length, number of authors, and venue. Additionally, we observe a large consistency between the characteristics of GPT-4's existing and non-existent generated references, indicating the model's internalization of citation patterns. By analyzing citation graphs, we show that the references recommended by GPT-4 are embedded in the relevant citation context, suggesting an even deeper conceptual internalization of the citation networks. While LLMs can aid in citation generation, they may also amplify existing biases and introduce new ones, potentially skewing scientific knowledge dissemination. Our results underscore the need for identifying the model's biases and for developing balanced methods to interact with LLMs in general.
Related papers
- Ground Every Sentence: Improving Retrieval-Augmented LLMs with Interleaved Reference-Claim Generation [51.8188846284153]
RAG has been widely adopted to enhance Large Language Models (LLMs)
Attributed Text Generation (ATG) has attracted growing attention, which provides citations to support the model's responses in RAG.
This paper proposes a fine-grained ATG method called ReClaim(Refer & Claim), which alternates the generation of references and answers step by step.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-07-01T20:47:47Z) - An Empirical Analysis on Large Language Models in Debate Evaluation [10.677407097411768]
We investigate the capabilities and inherent biases of advanced large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 in the context of debate evaluation.
We uncover a consistent bias in both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 towards the second candidate response presented.
We also uncover lexical biases in both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, especially when label sets carry connotations such as numerical or sequential.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-05-28T18:34:53Z) - REASONS: A benchmark for REtrieval and Automated citationS Of scieNtific Sentences using Public and Proprietary LLMs [41.64918533152914]
We investigate whether large language models (LLMs) are capable of generating references based on two forms of sentence queries.
From around 20K research articles, we make the following deductions on public and proprietary LLMs.
Our study contributes valuable insights into the reliability of RAG for automated citation generation tasks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-05-03T16:38:51Z) - CritiqueLLM: Towards an Informative Critique Generation Model for Evaluation of Large Language Model Generation [87.44350003888646]
Eval-Instruct can acquire pointwise grading critiques with pseudo references and revise these critiques via multi-path prompting.
CritiqueLLM is empirically shown to outperform ChatGPT and all the open-source baselines.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-30T16:52:42Z) - When Large Language Models Meet Citation: A Survey [37.01594297337486]
Large Language Models (LLMs) could be helpful in capturing fine-grained citation information via the corresponding textual context.
Citations also establish connections among scientific papers, providing high-quality inter-document relationships.
We review the application of LLMs for in-text citation analysis tasks, including citation classification, citation-based summarization, and citation recommendation.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-09-18T12:48:48Z) - Large Language Models on Wikipedia-Style Survey Generation: an Evaluation in NLP Concepts [21.150221839202878]
Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved significant success across various general tasks.
In this work, we examine the proficiency of LLMs in generating succinct survey articles specific to the niche field of NLP in computer science.
We compare both human and GPT-based evaluation scores and provide in-depth analysis.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-08-21T01:32:45Z) - Not All Metrics Are Guilty: Improving NLG Evaluation by Diversifying References [123.39034752499076]
Div-Ref is a method to enhance evaluation benchmarks by enriching the number of references.
We conduct experiments to empirically demonstrate that diversifying the expression of reference can significantly enhance the correlation between automatic evaluation and human evaluation.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-05-24T11:53:29Z) - Is ChatGPT Good at Search? Investigating Large Language Models as
Re-Ranking Agents [56.104476412839944]
Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable zero-shot generalization across various language-related tasks.
This paper investigates generative LLMs for relevance ranking in Information Retrieval (IR)
To address concerns about data contamination of LLMs, we collect a new test set called NovelEval.
To improve efficiency in real-world applications, we delve into the potential for distilling the ranking capabilities of ChatGPT into small specialized models.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-04-19T10:16:03Z) - G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment [64.01972723692587]
We present G-Eval, a framework of using large language models with chain-of-thoughts (CoT) and a form-filling paradigm to assess the quality of NLG outputs.
We show that G-Eval with GPT-4 as the backbone model achieves a Spearman correlation of 0.514 with human on summarization task, outperforming all previous methods by a large margin.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-03-29T12:46:54Z) - Correcting Exposure Bias for Link Recommendation [31.799185352323807]
Exposure bias can arise when users are systematically underexposed to certain relevant items.
We propose estimators that leverage known exposure probabilities to mitigate this bias.
Our methods lead to greater diversity in the recommended papers' fields of study.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-06-13T16:51:41Z) - Enhancing Scientific Papers Summarization with Citation Graph [78.65955304229863]
We redefine the task of scientific papers summarization by utilizing their citation graph.
We construct a novel scientific papers summarization dataset Semantic Scholar Network (SSN) which contains 141K research papers in different domains.
Our model can achieve competitive performance when compared with the pretrained models.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-04-07T11:13:35Z)
This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.
This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.