Splits! A Flexible Dataset for Evaluating a Model's Demographic Social Inference

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.04640v1
• Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2025 23:17:07 GMT
• Title: Splits! A Flexible Dataset for Evaluating a Model's Demographic Social Inference
• Authors: Eylon Caplan, Tania Chakraborty, Dan Goldwasser,
• Abstract summary: We define a new task called Group Theorization, in which a system must write theories that differentiate expression across demographic groups.<n>We release the raw corpora and evaluation scripts for Splits! to help researchers assess how methods infer--and potentially misrepresent--group differences in expression.
• Score: 17.722429998521168
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Understanding how people of various demographics think, feel, and express themselves (collectively called group expression) is essential for social science and underlies the assessment of bias in Large Language Models (LLMs). While LLMs can effectively summarize group expression when provided with empirical examples, coming up with generalizable theories of how a group's expression manifests in real-world text is challenging. In this paper, we define a new task called Group Theorization, in which a system must write theories that differentiate expression across demographic groups. We make available a large dataset on this task, Splits!, constructed by splitting Reddit posts by neutral topics (e.g. sports, cooking, and movies) and by demographics (e.g. occupation, religion, and race). Finally, we suggest a simple evaluation framework for assessing how effectively a method can generate 'better' theories about group expression, backed by human validation. We publicly release the raw corpora and evaluation scripts for Splits! to help researchers assess how methods infer--and potentially misrepresent--group differences in expression. We make Splits! and our evaluation module available at https://github.com/eyloncaplan/splits.

Related papers

• Using AI to replicate human experimental results: a motion study [0.11838866556981258]
  This paper explores the potential of large language models (LLMs) as reliable analytical tools in linguistic research.<n>It focuses on the emergence of affective meanings in temporal expressions involving manner-of-motion verbs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-14T14:47:01Z)
• Enhancing Study-Level Inference from Clinical Trial Papers via RL-based Numeric Reasoning [10.449112615828419]
  We conceptualise the problem as one of quantitative reasoning.<n>We develop a numeric reasoning system composed of a numeric data extraction model and an effect estimate component.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T22:59:45Z)
• Comparing LLM Text Annotation Skills: A Study on Human Rights Violations in Social Media Data [2.812898346527047]
  This study investigates the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) for zero-shot and few-shot annotation of social media posts in Russian and Ukrainian.<n>To evaluate the effectiveness of these models, their annotations are compared against a gold standard set of human double-annotated labels.<n>The study explores the unique patterns of errors and disagreements exhibited by each model, offering insights into their strengths, limitations, and cross-linguistic adaptability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-15T13:10:47Z)
• Hierarchical Indexing for Retrieval-Augmented Opinion Summarization [60.5923941324953]
  We propose a method for unsupervised abstractive opinion summarization that combines the attributability and scalability of extractive approaches with the coherence and fluency of Large Language Models (LLMs) Our method, HIRO, learns an index structure that maps sentences to a path through a semantically organized discrete hierarchy. At inference time, we populate the index and use it to identify and retrieve clusters of sentences containing popular opinions from input reviews.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-01T10:38:07Z)
• A structured regression approach for evaluating model performance across intersectional subgroups [53.91682617836498]
  Disaggregated evaluation is a central task in AI fairness assessment, where the goal is to measure an AI system's performance across different subgroups. We introduce a structured regression approach to disaggregated evaluation that we demonstrate can yield reliable system performance estimates even for very small subgroups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-26T14:21:45Z)
• Fair Abstractive Summarization of Diverse Perspectives [103.08300574459783]
  A fair summary should provide a comprehensive coverage of diverse perspectives without underrepresenting certain groups. We first formally define fairness in abstractive summarization as not underrepresenting perspectives of any groups of people. We propose four reference-free automatic metrics by measuring the differences between target and source perspectives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T03:38:55Z)
• Comprehending Lexical and Affective Ontologies in the Demographically Diverse Spatial Social Media Discourse [0.0]
  This study aims to comprehend linguistic and socio-demographic features, encompassing English language styles, conveyed sentiments, and lexical diversity within social media data. Our analysis entails the extraction and examination of various statistical, grammatical, and sentimental features from two groups. Our investigation unveils substantial disparities in certain linguistic attributes between the two groups, yielding a macro F1 score of approximately 0.85.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-12T04:23:33Z)
• Bias and Fairness in Large Language Models: A Survey [73.87651986156006]
  We present a comprehensive survey of bias evaluation and mitigation techniques for large language models (LLMs) We first consolidate, formalize, and expand notions of social bias and fairness in natural language processing. We then unify the literature by proposing three intuitive, two for bias evaluation, and one for mitigation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-02T00:32:55Z)
• Evaluation of Faithfulness Using the Longest Supported Subsequence [52.27522262537075]
  We introduce a novel approach to evaluate faithfulness of machine-generated text by computing the longest noncontinuous of the claim that is supported by the context. Using a new human-annotated dataset, we finetune a model to generate Longest Supported Subsequence (LSS) Our proposed metric demonstrates an 18% enhancement over the prevailing state-of-the-art metric for faithfulness on our dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-23T14:18:44Z)
• Disco-Bench: A Discourse-Aware Evaluation Benchmark for Language Modelling [70.23876429382969]
  We propose a benchmark that can evaluate intra-sentence discourse properties across a diverse set of NLP tasks. Disco-Bench consists of 9 document-level testsets in the literature domain, which contain rich discourse phenomena. For linguistic analysis, we also design a diagnostic test suite that can examine whether the target models learn discourse knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-16T15:18:25Z)
• Topics in the Haystack: Extracting and Evaluating Topics beyond Coherence [0.0]
  We propose a method that incorporates a deeper understanding of both sentence and document themes. This allows our model to detect latent topics that may include uncommon words or neologisms. We present correlation coefficients with human identification of intruder words and achieve near-human level results at the word-intrusion task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-30T12:24:25Z)
• Investigating Fairness Disparities in Peer Review: A Language Model Enhanced Approach [77.61131357420201]
  We conduct a thorough and rigorous study on fairness disparities in peer review with the help of large language models (LMs) We collect, assemble, and maintain a comprehensive relational database for the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) conference from 2017 to date. We postulate and study fairness disparities on multiple protective attributes of interest, including author gender, geography, author, and institutional prestige.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-07T16:19:42Z)
• A Unified Understanding of Deep NLP Models for Text Classification [88.35418976241057]
  We have developed a visual analysis tool, DeepNLPVis, to enable a unified understanding of NLP models for text classification. The key idea is a mutual information-based measure, which provides quantitative explanations on how each layer of a model maintains the information of input words in a sample. A multi-level visualization, which consists of a corpus-level, a sample-level, and a word-level visualization, supports the analysis from the overall training set to individual samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-19T08:55:07Z)
• Providing Insights for Open-Response Surveys via End-to-End Context-Aware Clustering [2.6094411360258185]
  In this work, we present a novel end-to-end context-aware framework that extracts, aggregates, and abbreviates embedded semantic patterns in open-response survey data. Our framework relies on a pre-trained natural language model in order to encode the textual data into semantic vectors. Our framework reduces the costs at-scale by automating the process of extracting the most insightful information pieces from survey data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-02T18:24:10Z)
• A Latent-Variable Model for Intrinsic Probing [93.62808331764072]
  We propose a novel latent-variable formulation for constructing intrinsic probes.<n>We find empirical evidence that pre-trained representations develop a cross-lingually entangled notion of morphosyntax.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-20T15:01:12Z)
• Fair Group-Shared Representations with Normalizing Flows [68.29997072804537]
  We develop a fair representation learning algorithm which is able to map individuals belonging to different groups in a single group. We show experimentally that our methodology is competitive with other fair representation learning algorithms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-17T10:49:49Z)
• Towards Improved and Interpretable Deep Metric Learning via Attentive Grouping [103.71992720794421]
  Grouping has been commonly used in deep metric learning for computing diverse features. We propose an improved and interpretable grouping method to be integrated flexibly with any metric learning framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-17T19:08:24Z)
• Contrastive Examples for Addressing the Tyranny of the Majority [83.93825214500131]
  We propose to create a balanced training dataset, consisting of the original dataset plus new data points in which the group memberships are intervened. We show that current generative adversarial networks are a powerful tool for learning these data points, called contrastive examples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-14T14:06:44Z)

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.