Vera Neplenbroek

Vera Neplenbroek, Gabriele Sarti, Arianna Bisazza et al.

When large language models (LLMs) are used in high-stakes scenarios, such as legal, medical and financial advice, even a single conversation history is enough to drive differences in outcomes between users. Prior work has demonstrated that this results in outcome disparities between sociodemographic groups, with some groups receiving more advantageous outcomes than others. In this work, we demonstrate that LLMs actually struggle to infer user sociodemographics from a single conversation history and that although there are disparities between sociodemographic groups, they are minimal in magnitude. To investigate what the main driver of these disparities is, we compare user sociodemographics to a range of (psycho)linguistic features of conversations, including conversation topic, emotions, and readability. We find that conversation topics are most predictive of LLM-generated advice within a conversational context, which, to some extent, function as proxies for sociodemographic groups and often affect advice in unpredictable ways. This is cause for concern and highlights the need for future research to better understand and, if needed, mitigate the effect of conversational context on LLM outputs in high-stakes scenarios.

Vera Neplenbroek, Arianna Bisazza, Raquel Fernández

Generative large language models (LLMs) have been shown to exhibit harmful biases and stereotypes. While safety fine-tuning typically takes place in English, if at all, these models are being used by speakers of many different languages. There is existing evidence that the performance of these models is inconsistent across languages and that they discriminate based on demographic factors of the user. Motivated by this, we investigate whether the social stereotypes exhibited by LLMs differ as a function of the language used to prompt them, while controlling for cultural differences and task accuracy. To this end, we present MBBQ (Multilingual Bias Benchmark for Question-answering), a carefully curated version of the English BBQ dataset extended to Dutch, Spanish, and Turkish, which measures stereotypes commonly held across these languages. We further complement MBBQ with a parallel control dataset to measure task performance on the question-answering task independently of bias. Our results based on several open-source and proprietary LLMs confirm that some non-English languages suffer from bias more than English, even when controlling for cultural shifts. Moreover, we observe significant cross-lingual differences in bias behaviour for all except the most accurate models. With the release of MBBQ, we hope to encourage further research on bias in multilingual settings. The dataset and code are available at https://github.com/Veranep/MBBQ.

Franziska Weeber, Vera Neplenbroek, Jan Batzner et al.

Personalization of LLMs by sociodemographic subgroup often improves user experience, but can also introduce or amplify biases and unfair outcomes across groups. Prior work has employed so-called personas, sociodemographic user attributes conveyed to a model, to study bias in LLMs by relying on a single cue to prompt a persona, such as user names or explicit attribute mentions. This disregards LLM sensitivity to prompt variations (robustness) and the rarity of some cues in real interactions (external validity). We compare six commonly used persona cues across seven open and proprietary LLMs on four writing and advice tasks. While cues are overall highly correlated, they produce substantial variance in responses across personas. We therefore caution against claims from a single persona cue and recommend future personalization research to evaluate multiple externally valid cues.

Vera Neplenbroek, Arianna Bisazza, Raquel Fernández

Recent generative large language models (LLMs) show remarkable performance in non-English languages, but when prompted in those languages they tend to express higher harmful social biases and toxicity levels. Prior work has shown that finetuning on specialized datasets can mitigate this behavior, and doing so in English can transfer to other languages. In this work, we investigate the impact of different finetuning methods on the model's bias and toxicity, but also on its ability to produce fluent and diverse text. We reduce biases by finetuning on curated non-harmful text, but find only direct preference optimization to be effective for mitigating toxicity. The mitigation caused by applying these methods in English also transfers to non-English languages. We find evidence that the extent to which transfer takes place can be predicted by the amount of data in a given language present in the model's pretraining data. However, this transfer of bias and toxicity mitigation often comes at the expense of decreased language generation ability in non-English languages, highlighting the importance of developing language-specific bias and toxicity mitigation methods.

Vera Neplenbroek, Arianna Bisazza, Raquel Fernández

Generative Large Language Models (LLMs) infer user's demographic information from subtle cues in the conversation -- a phenomenon called implicit personalization. Prior work has shown that such inferences can lead to lower quality responses for users assumed to be from minority groups, even when no demographic information is explicitly provided. In this work, we systematically explore how LLMs respond to stereotypical cues using controlled synthetic conversations, by analyzing the models' latent user representations through both model internals and generated answers to targeted user questions. Our findings reveal that LLMs do infer demographic attributes based on these stereotypical signals, which for a number of groups even persists when the user explicitly identifies with a different demographic group. Finally, we show that this form of stereotype-driven implicit personalization can be effectively mitigated by intervening on the model's internal representations using a trained linear probe to steer them toward the explicitly stated identity. Our results highlight the need for greater transparency and control in how LLMs represent user identity.

Anna Bavaresco, Raffaella Bernardi, Leonardo Bertolazzi et al.

There is an increasing trend towards evaluating NLP models with LLMs instead of human judgments, raising questions about the validity of these evaluations, as well as their reproducibility in the case of proprietary models. We provide JUDGE-BENCH, an extensible collection of 20 NLP datasets with human annotations covering a broad range of evaluated properties and types of data, and comprehensively evaluate 11 current LLMs, covering both open-weight and proprietary models, for their ability to replicate the annotations. Our evaluations show substantial variance across models and datasets. Models are reliable evaluators on some tasks, but overall display substantial variability depending on the property being evaluated, the expertise level of the human judges, and whether the language is human or model-generated. We conclude that LLMs should be carefully validated against human judgments before being used as evaluators.