Evaluation of Attribution Bias in Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.12380v1
• Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2024 08:55:49 GMT
• Title: Evaluation of Attribution Bias in Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models
• Authors: Amin Abolghasemi, Leif Azzopardi, Seyyed Hadi Hashemi, Maarten de Rijke, Suzan Verberne,
• Abstract summary: We evaluate the attribution sensitivity and bias with respect to authorship information in large language models. Our results show that adding authorship information to source documents can significantly change the attribution quality of LLMs by 3% to 18%. Our findings indicate that metadata of source documents can influence LLMs' trust, and how they attribute their answers.
• Score: 47.694137341509304
• License:
• Abstract: Attributing answers to source documents is an approach used to enhance the verifiability of a model's output in retrieval augmented generation (RAG). Prior work has mainly focused on improving and evaluating the attribution quality of large language models (LLMs) in RAG, but this may come at the expense of inducing biases in the attribution of answers. We define and examine two aspects in the evaluation of LLMs in RAG pipelines, namely attribution sensitivity and bias with respect to authorship information. We explicitly inform an LLM about the authors of source documents, instruct it to attribute its answers, and analyze (i) how sensitive the LLM's output is to the author of source documents, and (ii) whether the LLM exhibits a bias towards human-written or AI-generated source documents. We design an experimental setup in which we use counterfactual evaluation to study three LLMs in terms of their attribution sensitivity and bias in RAG pipelines. Our results show that adding authorship information to source documents can significantly change the attribution quality of LLMs by 3% to 18%. Moreover, we show that LLMs can have an attribution bias towards explicit human authorship, which can serve as a competing hypothesis for findings of prior work that shows that LLM-generated content may be preferred over human-written contents. Our findings indicate that metadata of source documents can influence LLMs' trust, and how they attribute their answers. Furthermore, our research highlights attribution bias and sensitivity as a novel aspect of brittleness in LLMs.

Related papers

• LLMs are Biased Evaluators But Not Biased for Retrieval Augmented Generation [28.61326111959728]
  Large language models (LLMs) exhibit significant biases in evaluation tasks, particularly in preferentially rating and favoring self-generated content. Our study addresses this knowledge gap by simulating two critical phases of the retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) framework. Contrary to previous findings, our results reveal no significant self-preference effect in RAG frameworks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-28T08:32:09Z)
• Large Language Models are Inconsistent and Biased Evaluators [2.136983452580014]
  We show that Large Language Models (LLMs) are biased evaluators as they exhibit familiarity bias and show skewed distributions of ratings. We also found that LLMs are inconsistent evaluators, showing low "inter-sample" agreement and sensitivity to prompt differences that are insignificant to human understanding of text quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-02T20:42:28Z)
• Do Large Language Models Rank Fairly? An Empirical Study on the Fairness of LLMs as Rankers [27.66626125248612]
  This paper presents an empirical study evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) using the TREC Fair Ranking dataset. We focus on the representation of binary protected attributes such as gender and geographic location, which are historically underrepresented in search outcomes. Our analysis delves into how these LLMs handle queries and documents related to these attributes, aiming to uncover biases in their ranking algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-04T04:23:19Z)
• Evaluating the Factuality of Large Language Models using Large-Scale Knowledge Graphs [30.179703001666173]
  Factuality issue is a critical concern for Large Language Models (LLMs) We propose GraphEval to evaluate an LLM's performance using a substantially large test dataset. Test dataset is retrieved from a large knowledge graph with more than 10 million facts without expensive human efforts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-01T06:01:17Z)
• Exploring Value Biases: How LLMs Deviate Towards the Ideal [57.99044181599786]
  Large-Language-Models (LLMs) are deployed in a wide range of applications, and their response has an increasing social impact. We show that value bias is strong in LLMs across different categories, similar to the results found in human studies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-16T18:28:43Z)
• Exploring the Jungle of Bias: Political Bias Attribution in Language Models via Dependency Analysis [86.49858739347412]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have sparked intense debate regarding the prevalence of bias in these models and its mitigation. We propose a prompt-based method for the extraction of confounding and mediating attributes which contribute to the decision process. We find that the observed disparate treatment can at least in part be attributed to confounding and mitigating attributes and model misalignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T00:02:25Z)
• LLatrieval: LLM-Verified Retrieval for Verifiable Generation [67.93134176912477]
  Verifiable generation aims to let the large language model (LLM) generate text with supporting documents. We propose LLatrieval (Large Language Model Verified Retrieval), where the LLM updates the retrieval result until it verifies that the retrieved documents can sufficiently support answering the question. Experiments show that LLatrieval significantly outperforms extensive baselines and achieves state-of-the-art results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T01:38:02Z)
• Survey on Factuality in Large Language Models: Knowledge, Retrieval and Domain-Specificity [61.54815512469125]
  This survey addresses the crucial issue of factuality in Large Language Models (LLMs) As LLMs find applications across diverse domains, the reliability and accuracy of their outputs become vital.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-11T14:18:03Z)
• FELM: Benchmarking Factuality Evaluation of Large Language Models [40.78878196872095]
  We introduce a benchmark for Factuality Evaluation of large Language Models, referred to as felm. We collect responses generated from large language models and annotate factuality labels in a fine-grained manner. Our findings reveal that while retrieval aids factuality evaluation, current LLMs are far from satisfactory to faithfully detect factual errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-01T17:37:31Z)
• Source Attribution for Large Language Model-Generated Data [57.85840382230037]
  It is imperative to be able to perform source attribution by identifying the data provider who contributed to the generation of a synthetic text. We show that this problem can be tackled by watermarking. We propose a source attribution framework that satisfies these key properties due to our algorithmic designs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-01T12:02:57Z)

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.