IssueBench: Millions of Realistic Prompts for Measuring Issue Bias in LLM Writing Assistance

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.08395v1
• Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 13:37:03 GMT
• Title: IssueBench: Millions of Realistic Prompts for Measuring Issue Bias in LLM Writing Assistance
• Authors: Paul Röttger, Musashi Hinck, Valentin Hofmann, Kobi Hackenburg, Valentina Pyatkin, Faeze Brahman, Dirk Hovy,
• Abstract summary: IssueBench is a set of 2.49m realistic prompts for measuring issue bias in large language models. We show that issue biases are common and persistent in state-of-the-art LLMs. All models align more with US Democrat than Republican voter opinion on a subset of issues.
• Score: 30.25793801015166
• License:
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are helping millions of users write texts about diverse issues, and in doing so expose users to different ideas and perspectives. This creates concerns about issue bias, where an LLM tends to present just one perspective on a given issue, which in turn may influence how users think about this issue. So far, it has not been possible to measure which issue biases LLMs actually manifest in real user interactions, making it difficult to address the risks from biased LLMs. Therefore, we create IssueBench: a set of 2.49m realistic prompts for measuring issue bias in LLM writing assistance, which we construct based on 3.9k templates (e.g. "write a blog about") and 212 political issues (e.g. "AI regulation") from real user interactions. Using IssueBench, we show that issue biases are common and persistent in state-of-the-art LLMs. We also show that biases are remarkably similar across models, and that all models align more with US Democrat than Republican voter opinion on a subset of issues. IssueBench can easily be adapted to include other issues, templates, or tasks. By enabling robust and realistic measurement, we hope that IssueBench can bring a new quality of evidence to ongoing discussions about LLM biases and how to address them.

Related papers

• Understanding the Dark Side of LLMs' Intrinsic Self-Correction [55.51468462722138]
  Intrinsic self-correction was proposed to improve LLMs' responses via feedback prompts solely based on their inherent capability. Recent works show that LLMs' intrinsic self-correction fails without oracle labels as feedback prompts. We identify intrinsic self-correction can cause LLMs to waver both intermedia and final answers and lead to prompt bias on simple factual questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-19T15:39:31Z)
• What does AI consider praiseworthy? [0.0]
  We analyze large language models' responses to user-stated intentions. We find strong alignment across models for a range of ethical actions. As AI systems become more integrated into society, their use of praise, criticism, and neutrality must be carefully monitored.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-27T15:46:54Z)
• Benchmarking Bias in Large Language Models during Role-Playing [21.28427555283642]
  We introduce BiasLens, a fairness testing framework designed to expose biases in Large Language Models (LLMs) during role-playing. Our approach uses LLMs to generate 550 social roles across a comprehensive set of 11 demographic attributes, producing 33,000 role-specific questions. Using the generated questions as the benchmark, we conduct extensive evaluations of six advanced LLMs released by OpenAI, Mistral AI, Meta, Alibaba, and DeepSeek. Our benchmark reveals 72,716 biased responses across the studied LLMs, with individual models yielding between 7,754 and 16,963 biased responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-01T13:47:00Z)
• Bias in the Mirror: Are LLMs opinions robust to their own adversarial attacks ? [22.0383367888756]
  Large language models (LLMs) inherit biases from their training data and alignment processes, influencing their responses in subtle ways. We introduce a novel approach where two instances of an LLM engage in self-debate, arguing opposing viewpoints to persuade a neutral version of the model. We evaluate how firmly biases hold and whether models are susceptible to reinforcing misinformation or shifting to harmful viewpoints.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-17T13:06:02Z)
• Are LLMs Aware that Some Questions are not Open-ended? [58.93124686141781]
  We study whether Large Language Models are aware that some questions have limited answers and need to respond more deterministically. The lack of question awareness in LLMs leads to two phenomena: (1) too casual to answer non-open-ended questions or (2) too boring to answer open-ended questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-01T06:07:00Z)
• Bias in LLMs as Annotators: The Effect of Party Cues on Labelling Decision by Large Language Models [0.0]
  We test similar biases in Large Language Models (LLMs) as annotators. Unlike humans, who are only biased when faced with statements from extreme parties, LLMs exhibit significant bias even when prompted with statements from center-left and center-right parties.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-28T16:05:20Z)
• Reinforcement Learning from Multi-role Debates as Feedback for Bias Mitigation in LLMs [6.090496490133132]
  We propose Reinforcement Learning from Multi-role Debates as Feedback (RLDF), a novel approach for bias mitigation replacing human feedback in traditional RLHF. We utilize LLMs in multi-role debates to create a dataset that includes both high-bias and low-bias instances for training the reward model in reinforcement learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-15T22:18:50Z)
• LLMs' Reading Comprehension Is Affected by Parametric Knowledge and Struggles with Hypothetical Statements [59.71218039095155]
  Task of reading comprehension (RC) provides a primary means to assess language models' natural language understanding (NLU) capabilities. If the context aligns with the models' internal knowledge, it is hard to discern whether the models' answers stem from context comprehension or from internal information. To address this issue, we suggest to use RC on imaginary data, based on fictitious facts and entities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-09T13:08:56Z)
• Political Compass or Spinning Arrow? Towards More Meaningful Evaluations for Values and Opinions in Large Language Models [61.45529177682614]
  We challenge the prevailing constrained evaluation paradigm for values and opinions in large language models. We show that models give substantively different answers when not forced. We distill these findings into recommendations and open challenges in evaluating values and opinions in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-26T18:00:49Z)
• Pride and Prejudice: LLM Amplifies Self-Bias in Self-Refinement [75.7148545929689]
  Large language models (LLMs) improve their performance through self-feedback on certain tasks while degrade on others. We formally define LLM's self-bias - the tendency to favor its own generation. We analyze six LLMs on translation, constrained text generation, and mathematical reasoning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-18T03:10:39Z)
• Statistical Knowledge Assessment for Large Language Models [79.07989821512128]
  Given varying prompts regarding a factoid question, can a large language model (LLM) reliably generate factually correct answers? We propose KaRR, a statistical approach to assess factual knowledge for LLMs. Our results reveal that the knowledge in LLMs with the same backbone architecture adheres to the scaling law, while tuning on instruction-following data sometimes compromises the model's capability to generate factually correct text reliably.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-17T18:54:37Z)

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.