Vamshi Krishna Bonagiri

Priyanshul Govil, Hemang Jain, Vamshi Krishna Bonagiri et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) often inherit biases from the web data they are trained on, which contains stereotypes and prejudices. Current methods for evaluating and mitigating these biases rely on bias-benchmark datasets. These benchmarks measure bias by observing an LLM's behavior on biased statements. However, these statements lack contextual considerations of the situations they try to present. To address this, we introduce a contextual reliability framework, which evaluates model robustness to biased statements by considering the various contexts in which they may appear. We develop the Context-Oriented Bias Indicator and Assessment Score (COBIAS) to measure a biased statement's reliability in detecting bias, based on the variance in model behavior across different contexts. To evaluate the metric, we augmented 2,291 stereotyped statements from two existing benchmark datasets by adding contextual information. We show that COBIAS aligns with human judgment on the contextual reliability of biased statements (Spearman's $ρ= 0.65, p = 3.4 * 10^{-60}$) and can be used to create reliable benchmarks, which would assist bias mitigation works.

Prashant Kodali, Anmol Goel, Likhith Asapu et al.

Current computational approaches for analysing or generating code-mixed sentences do not explicitly model ``naturalness'' or ``acceptability'' of code-mixed sentences, but rely on training corpora to reflect distribution of acceptable code-mixed sentences. Modelling human judgement for the acceptability of code-mixed text can help in distinguishing natural code-mixed text and enable quality-controlled generation of code-mixed text. To this end, we construct Cline - a dataset containing human acceptability judgements for English-Hindi~(en-hi) code-mixed text. Cline is the largest of its kind with 16,642 sentences, consisting of samples sourced from two sources: synthetically generated code-mixed text and samples collected from online social media. Our analysis establishes that popular code-mixing metrics such as CMI, Number of Switch Points, Burstines, which are used to filter/curate/compare code-mixed corpora have low correlation with human acceptability judgements, underlining the necessity of our dataset. Experiments using Cline demonstrate that simple Multilayer Perceptron (MLP) models when trained solely using code-mixing metrics as features are outperformed by fine-tuned pre-trained Multilingual Large Language Models (MLLMs). Specifically, among Encoder models XLM-Roberta and Bernice outperform IndicBERT across different configurations. Among Encoder-Decoder models, mBART performs better than mT5, however Encoder-Decoder models are not able to outperform Encoder-only models. Decoder-only models perform the best when compared to all other MLLMS, with Llama 3.2 - 3B models outperforming similarly sized Qwen, Phi models. Comparison with zero and fewshot capabilitites of ChatGPT show that MLLMs fine-tuned on larger data outperform ChatGPT, providing scope for improvement in code-mixed tasks. Zero-shot transfer from En-Hi to En-Te acceptability judgments are better than random baselines.

Vamshi Krishna Bonagiri, Sreeram Vennam, Priyanshul Govil et al.

Despite recent advancements showcasing the impressive capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) in conversational systems, we show that even state-of-the-art LLMs are morally inconsistent in their generations, questioning their reliability (and trustworthiness in general). Prior works in LLM evaluation focus on developing ground-truth data to measure accuracy on specific tasks. However, for moral scenarios that often lack universally agreed-upon answers, consistency in model responses becomes crucial for their reliability. To address this issue, we propose an information-theoretic measure called Semantic Graph Entropy (SaGE), grounded in the concept of "Rules of Thumb" (RoTs) to measure a model's moral consistency. RoTs are abstract principles learned by a model and can help explain their decision-making strategies effectively. To this extent, we construct the Moral Consistency Corpus (MCC), containing 50K moral questions, responses to them by LLMs, and the RoTs that these models followed. Furthermore, to illustrate the generalizability of SaGE, we use it to investigate LLM consistency on two popular datasets -- TruthfulQA and HellaSwag. Our results reveal that task-accuracy and consistency are independent problems, and there is a dire need to investigate these issues further.

Vamshi Krishna Bonagiri, Sreeram Vennam, Manas Gaur et al.

A Large Language Model (LLM) is considered consistent if semantically equivalent prompts produce semantically equivalent responses. Despite recent advancements showcasing the impressive capabilities of LLMs in conversational systems, we show that even state-of-the-art LLMs are highly inconsistent in their generations, questioning their reliability. Prior research has tried to measure this with task-specific accuracy. However, this approach is unsuitable for moral scenarios, such as the trolley problem, with no "correct" answer. To address this issue, we propose a novel information-theoretic measure called Semantic Graph Entropy (SGE) to measure the consistency of an LLM in moral scenarios. We leverage "Rules of Thumb" (RoTs) to explain a model's decision-making strategies and further enhance our metric. Compared to existing consistency metrics, SGE correlates better with human judgments across five LLMs. In the future, we aim to investigate the root causes of LLM inconsistencies and propose improvements.