Graham McDonald

Anna Marie Rezk, Patrizia Di Campli San Vito, Ayah Soufan et al.

Search engines that present users with a ranked list of search results are a fundamental technology for providing public access to information. Evaluations of such systems are typically conducted by domain experts and focus on model-centric metrics, relevance judgments, or output-based analyses, rather than on how accountability, harm, or trust are experienced by users. This paper argues that participatory auditing is essential for revealing users' causal and contextual understandings of how ranked search results produce impacts, particularly as ranking models appear increasingly convincing and sophisticated in their semantic interpretation of user queries. We report on three participatory auditing workshops (n=21) in which participants engaged with a custom search interface across four tasks, comparing a lexical ranker (BM25) and a neural semantic reranker (MonoT5), exploring varying levels of transparency and user controls, and examining an intentionally adversarially manipulated ranking. Reflexive activities prompted participants to articulate causal narratives linking search system properties to broader impacts. Synthesising the findings, we contribute a taxonomy of user-perceived impacts of ranked search results, spanning epistemic, representational, infrastructural, and downstream social impacts. However, interactions with the neural model revealed limits to participatory auditing itself: perceived system competence and accumulated trust reduced critical scrutiny during the workshop, allowing manipulations to go undetected. Participants expressed desire for visibility into the full search pipeline and recourse mechanisms. Together, these findings show how participatory auditing can surface user perceived impacts and accountability gaps that remain unseen when relying on conventional audits, while revealing where participatory auditing may encounter limitations.

Ritajit Dey, Iadh Ounis, Graham McDonald et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) often struggle with temporal fact conflicts due to outdated or evolving information in their training data. Two recent studies with accompanying datasets report opposite conclusions on whether external context can effectively resolve such conflicts. DYNAMICQA evaluates how effective external context is in shifting the model's output distribution, finding that temporal facts are more resistant to change. In contrast, MULAN examines how often external context changes memorised facts, concluding that temporal facts are easier to update. In this reproducibility paper, we first reproduce experiments from both benchmarks. We then reproduce the experiments of each study on the dataset of the other to investigate the source of their disagreement. To enable direct comparison of findings, we standardise both datasets to align with the evaluation settings of each study. Importantly, using an LLM, we synthetically generate realistic natural language contexts to replace MULAN's programmatically constructed statements when reproducing the findings of DYNAMICQA. Our analysis reveals strong dataset dependence: MULAN's findings generalise under both methodological frameworks, whereas applying MULAN's evaluation to DYNAMICQA yields mixed outcomes. Finally, while the original studies only considered 7B LLMs, we reproduce these experiments across LLMs of varying sizes, revealing how model size influences the encoding and updating of temporal facts. Our results highlight how dataset design, evaluation metrics, and model size shape LLM behaviour in the presence of temporal knowledge conflicts.

Mahdi Dehghan, Graham McDonald

Large Language Models (LLMs) enhanced with Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) have achieved substantial improvements in accuracy by grounding their responses in external documents that are relevant to the user's query. However, relatively little work has investigated the impact of RAG in terms of fairness. Particularly, it is not yet known if queries that are associated with certain groups within a fairness category systematically receive higher accuracy, or accuracy improvements in RAG systems compared to LLM-only, a phenomenon we refer to as query group fairness. In this work, we conduct extensive experiments to investigate the impact of three key factors on query group fairness in RAG, namely: Group exposure, i.e., the proportion of documents from each group appearing in the retrieved set, determined by the retriever; Group utility, i.e., the degree to which documents from each group contribute to improving answer accuracy, capturing retriever-generator interactions; and Group attribution, i.e., the extent to which the generator relies on documents from each group when producing responses. We examine group-level average accuracy and accuracy improvements disparities across four fairness categories using three datasets derived from the TREC 2022 Fair Ranking Track for two tasks: article generation and title generation. Our findings show that RAG systems suffer from the query group fairness problem and amplify disparities in terms of average accuracy across queries from different groups, compared to an LLM-only setting. Moreover, group utility, exposure, and attribution can exhibit strong positive or negative correlations with average accuracy or accuracy improvements of queries from that group, highlighting their important role in fair RAG. Our data and code are publicly available from Github.

Erlend Frayling, Jake Lever, Graham McDonald

The challenge of accessing historical patient data for clinical research, while adhering to privacy regulations, is a significant obstacle in medical science. An innovative approach to circumvent this issue involves utilising synthetic medical records that mirror real patient data without compromising individual privacy. The creation of these synthetic datasets, particularly without using actual patient data to train Large Language Models (LLMs), presents a novel solution as gaining access to sensitive patient information to train models is also a challenge. This study assesses the capability of the Llama 2 LLM to create synthetic medical records that accurately reflect real patient information, employing zero-shot and few-shot prompting strategies for comparison against fine-tuned methodologies that do require sensitive patient data during training. We focus on generating synthetic narratives for the History of Present Illness section, utilising data from the MIMIC-IV dataset for comparison. In this work introduce a novel prompting technique that leverages a chain-of-thought approach, enhancing the model's ability to generate more accurate and contextually relevant medical narratives without prior fine-tuning. Our findings suggest that this chain-of-thought prompted approach allows the zero-shot model to achieve results on par with those of fine-tuned models, based on Rouge metrics evaluation.

Graham McDonald, Craig Macdonald, Iadh Ounis

At least ninety countries implement Freedom of Information laws that state that government documents must be made freely available, or opened, to the public. However, many government documents contain sensitive information, such as personal or confidential information. Therefore, all government documents that are opened to the public must first be reviewed to identify, and protect, any sensitive information. Historically, sensitivity review has been a completely manual process. However, with the adoption of born-digital documents, such as e-mail, human-only sensitivity review is not practical and there is a need for new technologies to assist human sensitivity reviewers. In this paper, we discuss how issues of fairness, accountability, confidentiality, transparency and safety (FACTS) impact technology-assisted sensitivity review. Moreover, we outline some important areas of future FACTS research that will need to be addressed within technology-assisted sensitivity review.