Evaluating how LLM annotations represent diverse views on contentious topics

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.23243v2
• Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2025 00:52:04 GMT
• Title: Evaluating how LLM annotations represent diverse views on contentious topics
• Authors: Megan A. Brown, Shubham Atreja, Libby Hemphill, Patrick Y. Wu,
• Abstract summary: We show that generative large language models (LLMs) tend to be biased in the same directions on the same demographic categories within the same datasets.<n>We conclude with a discussion of the implications for researchers and practitioners using LLMs for automated data annotation tasks.
• Score: 3.405231040967506
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Researchers have proposed the use of generative large language models (LLMs) to label data for research and applied settings. This literature emphasizes the improved performance of these models relative to other natural language models, noting that generative LLMs typically outperform other models and even humans across several metrics. Previous literature has examined bias across many applications and contexts, but less work has focused specifically on bias in generative LLMs' responses to subjective annotation tasks. This bias could result in labels applied by LLMs that disproportionately align with majority groups over a more diverse set of viewpoints. In this paper, we evaluate how LLMs represent diverse viewpoints on these contentious tasks. Across four annotation tasks on four datasets, we show that LLMs do not show systematic substantial disagreement with annotators on the basis of demographics. Rather, we find that multiple LLMs tend to be biased in the same directions on the same demographic categories within the same datasets. Moreover, the disagreement between human annotators on the labeling task -- a measure of item difficulty -- is far more predictive of LLM agreement with human annotators. We conclude with a discussion of the implications for researchers and practitioners using LLMs for automated data annotation tasks. Specifically, we emphasize that fairness evaluations must be contextual, model choice alone will not solve potential issues of bias, and item difficulty must be integrated into bias assessments.

Related papers

• MLLMs are Deeply Affected by Modality Bias [158.64371871084478]
  Recent advances in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have shown promising results in integrating diverse modalities such as texts and images.<n>MLLMs are heavily influenced by modality bias, often relying on language while under-utilizing other modalities like visual inputs.<n>This paper argues that MLLMs are deeply affected by modality bias, highlighting its manifestations across various tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-24T11:49:31Z)
• No LLM is Free From Bias: A Comprehensive Study of Bias Evaluation in Large Language Models [0.9620910657090186]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have increased the performance of different natural language understanding as well as generation tasks.<n>We provide a unified evaluation of benchmarks using a set of representative small and medium-sized LLMs.<n>We propose five prompting approaches to carry out the bias detection task across different aspects of bias.<n>The results indicate that each of the selected LLMs suffer from one or the other form of bias with the Phi-3.5B model being the least biased.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-15T03:58:14Z)
• Implicit Bias in LLMs: A Survey [2.07180164747172]
  This paper provides a comprehensive review of the existing literature on implicit bias in Large language models.<n>We begin by introducing key concepts, theories and methods related to implicit bias in psychology.<n>We categorize detection methods into three primary approaches: word association, task-oriented text generation and decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-04T16:49:37Z)
• Latent Factor Models Meets Instructions: Goal-conditioned Latent Factor Discovery without Task Supervision [50.45597801390757]
  Instruct-LF is a goal-oriented latent factor discovery system. It integrates instruction-following ability with statistical models to handle noisy datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-21T02:03:08Z)
• Preference Leakage: A Contamination Problem in LLM-as-a-judge [69.96778498636071]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) as judges and LLM-based data synthesis have emerged as two fundamental LLM-driven data annotation methods.<n>In this work, we expose preference leakage, a contamination problem in LLM-as-a-judge caused by the relatedness between the synthetic data generators and LLM-based evaluators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-03T17:13:03Z)
• The Alternative Annotator Test for LLM-as-a-Judge: How to Statistically Justify Replacing Human Annotators with LLMs [21.97227334180969]
  "LLM-as-a-judge" paradigm employs Large Language Models as annotators and evaluators in tasks traditionally performed by humans. Despite their role in shaping study results and insights, there is no standard or rigorous procedure to determine whether LLMs can replace human annotators. We propose a novel statistical procedure -- the Alternative Annotator Test (alt-test) -- that requires only a modest subset of annotated examples to justify using LLM annotations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-19T07:09:11Z)
• Justice or Prejudice? Quantifying Biases in LLM-as-a-Judge [84.34545223897578]
  Despite their excellence in many domains, potential issues are under-explored, undermining their reliability and the scope of their utility. We identify 12 key potential biases and propose a new automated bias quantification framework-CALM- which quantifies and analyzes each type of bias in LLM-as-a-Judge. Our work highlights the need for stakeholders to address these issues and remind users to exercise caution in LLM-as-a-Judge applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T17:53:30Z)
• Hate Personified: Investigating the role of LLMs in content moderation [64.26243779985393]
  For subjective tasks such as hate detection, where people perceive hate differently, the Large Language Model's (LLM) ability to represent diverse groups is unclear. By including additional context in prompts, we analyze LLM's sensitivity to geographical priming, persona attributes, and numerical information to assess how well the needs of various groups are reflected.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T16:43:17Z)
• Examining the Influence of Political Bias on Large Language Model Performance in Stance Classification [5.8229466650067065]
  We investigate whether large language models (LLMs) exhibit a tendency to more accurately classify politically-charged stances. Our findings reveal a statistically significant difference in the performance of LLMs across various politically oriented stance classification tasks. LLMs have poorer stance classification accuracy when there is greater ambiguity in the target the statement is directed towards.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-25T01:11:38Z)
• SELF-GUIDE: Better Task-Specific Instruction Following via Self-Synthetic Finetuning [70.21358720599821]
  Large language models (LLMs) hold the promise of solving diverse tasks when provided with appropriate natural language prompts. We propose SELF-GUIDE, a multi-stage mechanism in which we synthesize task-specific input-output pairs from the student LLM. We report an absolute improvement of approximately 15% for classification tasks and 18% for generation tasks in the benchmark's metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-16T04:41:58Z)
• CEB: Compositional Evaluation Benchmark for Fairness in Large Language Models [58.57987316300529]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed to handle various natural language processing (NLP) tasks.<n>To evaluate the biases exhibited by LLMs, researchers have recently proposed a variety of datasets.<n>We propose CEB, a Compositional Evaluation Benchmark that covers different types of bias across different social groups and tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-02T16:31:37Z)
• Fairness in Large Language Models: A Taxonomic Survey [2.669847575321326]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable success across various domains.<n>Despite their promising performance in numerous real-world applications, most of these algorithms lack fairness considerations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-31T22:22:53Z)
• Large Language Models: A Survey [66.39828929831017]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have drawn a lot of attention due to their strong performance on a wide range of natural language tasks.<n>LLMs' ability of general-purpose language understanding and generation is acquired by training billions of model's parameters on massive amounts of text data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-09T05:37:09Z)
• Large Language Model (LLM) Bias Index -- LLMBI [0.0]
  The Large Language Model Bias Index (LLMBI) is a pioneering approach designed to quantify and address biases inherent in large language models (LLMs) We formulated LLMBI using a composite scoring system incorporating multiple dimensions of bias, including but not limited to age, gender, and racial biases. Our empirical analysis, conducted using responses from OpenAI's API, employs advanced sentiment analysis as a representative method for bias detection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-22T15:38:13Z)
• Are Large Language Models Reliable Judges? A Study on the Factuality Evaluation Capabilities of LLMs [8.526956860672698]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained immense attention due to their notable emergent capabilities. This study investigates the potential of LLMs as reliable assessors of factual consistency in summaries generated by text-generation models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-01T17:42:45Z)
• Confronting LLMs with Traditional ML: Rethinking the Fairness of Large Language Models in Tabular Classifications [23.963586791210414]
  We show that large language models (LLMs) tend to inherit social biases from their training data which significantly impact their fairness in classification tasks. This observation emphasizes that the social biases are inherent within the LLMs themselves and inherited from their pretraining corpus.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-23T06:31:28Z)
• "Kelly is a Warm Person, Joseph is a Role Model": Gender Biases in LLM-Generated Reference Letters [97.11173801187816]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently emerged as an effective tool to assist individuals in writing various types of content. This paper critically examines gender biases in LLM-generated reference letters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-13T16:12:57Z)
• On Learning to Summarize with Large Language Models as References [101.79795027550959]
  Large language models (LLMs) are favored by human annotators over the original reference summaries in commonly used summarization datasets. We study an LLM-as-reference learning setting for smaller text summarization models to investigate whether their performance can be substantially improved.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T16:56:04Z)

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.