Neutralizing Bias in LLM Reasoning using Entailment Graphs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.11614v1
• Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 17:33:30 GMT
• Title: Neutralizing Bias in LLM Reasoning using Entailment Graphs
• Authors: Liang Cheng, Tianyi Li, Zhaowei Wang, Tianyang Liu, Mark Steedman,
• Abstract summary: LLMs are often claimed to be capable of Natural Language Inference (NLI), which is widely regarded as a cornerstone of more complex forms of reasoning.<n>We design an unsupervised framework to construct counterfactual reasoning data and fine-tune LLMs to reduce attestation bias.<n>Our framework consistently improves inferential performance on both original and bias-neutralized NLI datasets.
• Score: 13.5088417466172
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: LLMs are often claimed to be capable of Natural Language Inference (NLI), which is widely regarded as a cornerstone of more complex forms of reasoning. However, recent works show that LLMs still suffer from hallucinations in NLI due to attestation bias, where LLMs overly rely on propositional memory to build shortcuts. To solve the issue, we design an unsupervised framework to construct counterfactual reasoning data and fine-tune LLMs to reduce attestation bias. To measure bias reduction, we build bias-adversarial variants of NLI datasets with randomly replaced predicates in premises while keeping hypotheses unchanged. Extensive evaluations show that our framework can significantly reduce hallucinations from attestation bias. Then, we further evaluate LLMs fine-tuned with our framework on original NLI datasets and their bias-neutralized versions, where original entities are replaced with randomly sampled ones. Extensive results show that our framework consistently improves inferential performance on both original and bias-neutralized NLI datasets.

Related papers

• Provenance: A Light-weight Fact-checker for Retrieval Augmented LLM Generation Output [49.893971654861424]
  We present a light-weight approach for detecting nonfactual outputs from retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) We compute a factuality score that can be thresholded to yield a binary decision. Our experiments show high area under the ROC curve (AUC) across a wide range of relevant open source datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-01T20:44:59Z)
• Self-Preference Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge [13.880151307013321]
  We introduce a novel metric to measure the self-preference bias in large language models (LLMs) Our results show GPT-4 exhibits a significant degree of self-preference bias. This suggests that the essence of the bias lies in perplexity and that the self-preference bias exists because LLMs prefer texts more familiar to them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-29T07:42:18Z)
• From Yes-Men to Truth-Tellers: Addressing Sycophancy in Large Language Models with Pinpoint Tuning [91.79567270986901]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) tend to prioritize adherence to user prompts over providing veracious responses.<n>Recent works propose to employ supervised fine-tuning (SFT) to mitigate the sycophancy issue.<n>We propose a novel supervised pinpoint tuning (SPT), where the region-of-interest modules are tuned for a given objective.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-03T07:01:37Z)
• Order Matters in Hallucination: Reasoning Order as Benchmark and Reflexive Prompting for Large-Language-Models [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) have generated significant attention since their inception, finding applications across various academic and industrial domains.<n>LLMs often suffer from the "hallucination problem", where outputs, though grammatically and logically coherent, lack factual accuracy or are entirely fabricated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-09T14:34:32Z)
• Robustness of LLMs to Perturbations in Text [2.0670689746336]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive performance, but can they handle the inevitable noise in real-world data? This work tackles this critical question by investigating LLMs' resilience against morphological variations in text. Our findings show that contrary to popular beliefs, generative LLMs are quiet robust to noisy perturbations in text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-12T04:50:17Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Self-Supervised Position Debiasing for Large Language Models [39.261233221850155]
  We propose a self-supervised position debiasing (SOD) framework to mitigate position bias for large language models (LLMs) Experiments on eight datasets and five tasks show that SOD consistently outperforms existing methods in mitigating three types of position biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-02T14:12:41Z)
• The Unlocking Spell on Base LLMs: Rethinking Alignment via In-Context Learning [61.68787689234622]
  A recent study, LIMA, shows that using merely 1K examples for alignment tuning can achieve significant alignment performance as well. This raises questions about how exactly the alignment tuning transforms a base LLM. We show that the gap between tuning-free and tuning-based alignment methods can be significantly reduced through strategic prompting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-04T00:46:11Z)
• Improving Factual Consistency of News Summarization by Contrastive Preference Optimization [65.11227166319546]
  Large language models (LLMs) generate summaries that are factually inconsistent with original articles. These hallucinations are challenging to detect through traditional methods. We propose Contrastive Preference Optimization (CPO) to disentangle the LLMs' propensities to generate faithful and fake content.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T08:40:16Z)
• ReEval: Automatic Hallucination Evaluation for Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models via Transferable Adversarial Attacks [91.55895047448249]
  This paper presents ReEval, an LLM-based framework using prompt chaining to perturb the original evidence for generating new test cases. We implement ReEval using ChatGPT and evaluate the resulting variants of two popular open-domain QA datasets. Our generated data is human-readable and useful to trigger hallucination in large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-19T06:37:32Z)

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.