Language Models Surface the Unwritten Code of Science and Society

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.18942v2
• Date: Tue, 27 May 2025 14:15:31 GMT
• Title: Language Models Surface the Unwritten Code of Science and Society
• Authors: Honglin Bao, Siyang Wu, Jiwoong Choi, Yingrong Mao, James A. Evans,
• Abstract summary: This paper calls on the research community to investigate how human biases are inherited by large language models (LLMs)<n>We introduce a conceptual framework through a case study in science: uncovering hidden rules in peer review.
• Score: 1.4680035572775534
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This paper calls on the research community not only to investigate how human biases are inherited by large language models (LLMs) but also to explore how these biases in LLMs can be leveraged to make society's "unwritten code" - such as implicit stereotypes and heuristics - visible and accessible for critique. We introduce a conceptual framework through a case study in science: uncovering hidden rules in peer review - the factors that reviewers care about but rarely state explicitly due to normative scientific expectations. The idea of the framework is to push LLMs to speak out their heuristics through generating self-consistent hypotheses - why one paper appeared stronger in reviewer scoring - among paired papers submitted to 45 computer science conferences, while iteratively searching deeper hypotheses from remaining pairs where existing hypotheses cannot explain. We observed that LLMs' normative priors about the internal characteristics of good science extracted from their self-talk, e.g. theoretical rigor, were systematically updated toward posteriors that emphasize storytelling about external connections, such as how the work is positioned and connected within and across literatures. This shift reveals the primacy of scientific myths about intrinsic properties driving scientific excellence rather than extrinsic contextualization and storytelling that influence conceptions of relevance and significance. Human reviewers tend to explicitly reward aspects that moderately align with LLMs' normative priors (correlation = 0.49) but avoid articulating contextualization and storytelling posteriors in their review comments (correlation = -0.14), despite giving implicit reward to them with positive scores. We discuss the broad applicability of the framework, leveraging LLMs as diagnostic tools to surface the tacit codes underlying human society, enabling more precisely targeted responsible AI.

Related papers

• Machine Bullshit: Characterizing the Emergent Disregard for Truth in Large Language Models [57.834711966432685]
  Bullshit, as conceptualized by philosopher Harry Frankfurt, refers to statements made without regard to their truth value.<n>We introduce the Bullshit Index, a novel metric quantifying large language model's indifference to truth.<n>We observe prevalent machine bullshit in political contexts, with weasel words as the dominant strategy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-10T07:11:57Z)
• Are Language Models Consequentialist or Deontological Moral Reasoners? [69.85385952436044]
  We focus on a large-scale analysis of the moral reasoning traces provided by large language models (LLMs)<n>We introduce and test a taxonomy of moral rationales to systematically classify reasoning traces according to two main normative ethical theories: consequentialism and deontology.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-27T17:51:18Z)
• The Art of Audience Engagement: LLM-Based Thin-Slicing of Scientific Talks [0.0]
  We show that brief excerpts (thin slices) reliably predict overall presentation quality.<n>Using a novel corpus of over one hundred real-life science talks, we employ Large Language Models (LLMs) to evaluate transcripts of full presentations.<n>Our results demonstrate that LLM-based evaluations align closely with human ratings, proving their validity, reliability, and efficiency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-15T00:08:13Z)
• 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)
• Are We There Yet? Revealing the Risks of Utilizing Large Language Models in Scholarly Peer Review [66.73247554182376]
  Large language models (LLMs) have led to their integration into peer review.<n>The unchecked adoption of LLMs poses significant risks to the integrity of the peer review system.<n>We show that manipulating 5% of the reviews could potentially cause 12% of the papers to lose their position in the top 30% rankings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-02T16:55:03Z)
• Internal Consistency and Self-Feedback in Large Language Models: A Survey [19.647988281648253]
  We use a unified perspective of internal consistency, offering explanations for reasoning deficiencies and hallucinations. We introduce an effective theoretical framework capable of mining internal consistency, named Self-Feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-19T17:59:03Z)
• Categorical Syllogisms Revisited: A Review of the Logical Reasoning Abilities of LLMs for Analyzing Categorical Syllogism [62.571419297164645]
  This paper provides a systematic overview of prior works on the logical reasoning ability of large language models for analyzing categorical syllogisms.<n>We first investigate all the possible variations for the categorical syllogisms from a purely logical perspective.<n>We then examine the underlying configurations (i.e., mood and figure) tested by the existing datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-26T21:17:20Z)
• Best Practices for Text Annotation with Large Language Models [11.421942894219901]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have ushered in a new era of text annotation. This paper proposes a comprehensive set of standards and best practices for their reliable, reproducible, and ethical use.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-05T15:43:50Z)
• 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)
• Large Language Models for Automated Open-domain Scientific Hypotheses Discovery [50.40483334131271]
  This work proposes the first dataset for social science academic hypotheses discovery. Unlike previous settings, the new dataset requires (1) using open-domain data (raw web corpus) as observations; and (2) proposing hypotheses even new to humanity. A multi- module framework is developed for the task, including three different feedback mechanisms to boost performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-06T05:19:41Z)
• 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)

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.