Large Language Models (LLMs) are trained on large-scale web data, which makes it difficult to grasp the contribution of each text. This poses the risk of leaking inappropriate data such as benchmarks, personal information, and copyrighted texts in the training data. Membership Inference Attacks (MIA), which determine whether a given text is included in the model's training data, have been attracting attention. Previous studies of MIAs revealed that likelihood-based classification is effective for detecting leaks in LLMs. However, the existing methods cannot be applied to some proprietary models like ChatGPT or Claude 3 because the likelihood is unavailable to the user. In this study, we propose a Sampling-based Pseudo-Likelihood (\textbf{SPL}) method for MIA (\textbf{SaMIA}) that calculates SPL using only the text generated by an LLM to detect leaks. The SaMIA treats the target text as the reference text and multiple outputs from the LLM as text samples, calculates the degree of $n$-gram match as SPL, and determines the membership of the text in the training data. Even without likelihoods, SaMIA performed on par with existing likelihood-based methods.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated great potential in Conversational Recommender Systems (CRS). However, the application of LLMs to CRS has exposed a notable discrepancy in behavior between LLM-based CRS and human recommenders: LLMs often appear inflexible and passive, frequently rushing to complete the recommendation task without sufficient inquiry.This behavior discrepancy can lead to decreased accuracy in recommendations and lower user satisfaction. Despite its importance, existing studies in CRS lack a study about how to measure such behavior discrepancy. To fill this gap, we propose Behavior Alignment, a new evaluation metric to measure how well the recommendation strategies made by a LLM-based CRS are consistent with human recommenders'. Our experiment results show that the new metric is better aligned with human preferences and can better differentiate how systems perform than existing evaluation metrics. As Behavior Alignment requires explicit and costly human annotations on the recommendation strategies, we also propose a classification-based method to implicitly measure the Behavior Alignment based on the responses. The evaluation results confirm the robustness of the method.

With the rapid advancement of large language models (LLMs), information retrieval (IR) systems, such as search engines and recommender systems, have undergone a significant paradigm shift. This evolution, while heralding new opportunities, introduces emerging challenges, particularly in terms of biases and unfairness, which may threaten the information ecosystem. In this paper, we present a comprehensive survey of existing works on emerging and pressing bias and unfairness issues in IR systems when the integration of LLMs. We first unify bias and unfairness issues as distribution mismatch problems, providing a groundwork for categorizing various mitigation strategies through distribution alignment. Subsequently, we systematically delve into the specific bias and unfairness issues arising from three critical stages of LLMs integration into IR systems: data collection, model development, and result evaluation. In doing so, we meticulously review and analyze recent literature, focusing on the definitions, characteristics, and corresponding mitigation strategies associated with these issues. Finally, we identify and highlight some open problems and challenges for future work, aiming to inspire researchers and stakeholders in the IR field and beyond to better understand and mitigate bias and unfairness issues of IR in this LLM era. We also consistently maintain a GitHub repository for the relevant papers and resources in this rising direction at https://github.com/KID-22/LLM-IR-Bias-Fairness-Survey.

There is an emerging consensus that we need to align AI systems with human values (Gabriel, 2020; Ji et al., 2024), but it remains unclear how to apply this to language models in practice. We split the problem of "aligning to human values" into three parts: first, eliciting values from people; second, reconciling those values into an alignment target for training ML models; and third, actually training the model. In this paper, we focus on the first two parts, and ask the question: what are "good" ways to synthesize diverse human inputs about values into a target for aligning language models? To answer this question, we first define a set of 6 criteria that we believe must be satisfied for an alignment target to shape model behavior in accordance with human values. We then propose a process for eliciting and reconciling values called Moral Graph Elicitation (MGE), which uses a large language model to interview participants about their values in particular contexts; our approach is inspired by the philosophy of values advanced by Taylor (1977), Chang (2004), and others. We trial MGE with a representative sample of 500 Americans, on 3 intentionally divisive prompts (e.g. advice about abortion). Our results demonstrate that MGE is promising for improving model alignment across all 6 criteria. For example, almost all participants (89.1%) felt well represented by the process, and (89%) thought the final moral graph was fair, even if their value wasn't voted as the wisest. Our process often results in "expert" values (e.g. values from women who have solicited abortion advice) rising to the top of the moral graph, without defining who is considered an expert in advance.

As the integration of large language models into daily life is on the rise, there is a clear gap in benchmarks for advising on subjective and personal dilemmas. To address this, we introduce AdvisorQA, the first benchmark developed to assess LLMs' capability in offering advice for deeply personalized concerns, utilizing the LifeProTips subreddit forum. This forum features a dynamic interaction where users post advice-seeking questions, receiving an average of 8.9 advice per query, with 164.2 upvotes from hundreds of users, embodying a collective intelligence framework. Therefore, we've completed a benchmark encompassing daily life questions, diverse corresponding responses, and majority vote ranking to train our helpfulness metric. Baseline experiments validate the efficacy of AdvisorQA through our helpfulness metric, GPT-4, and human evaluation, analyzing phenomena beyond the trade-off between helpfulness and harmlessness. AdvisorQA marks a significant leap in enhancing QA systems for providing personalized, empathetic advice, showcasing LLMs' improved understanding of human subjectivity.

Content Warning: This paper presents examples of gender stereotypes that may be offensive or upsetting. Gender stereotypes are pervasive beliefs about individuals based on their gender that play a significant role in shaping societal attitudes, behaviours, and even opportunities. Recognizing the negative implications of gender stereotypes, particularly in online communications, this study investigates eleven strategies to automatically counteract and challenge these views. We present AI-generated gender-based counter-stereotypes to (self-identified) male and female study participants and ask them to assess their offensiveness, plausibility, and potential effectiveness. The strategies of counter-facts and broadening universals (i.e., stating that anyone can have a trait regardless of group membership) emerged as the most robust approaches, while humour, perspective-taking, counter-examples, and empathy for the speaker were perceived as less effective. Also, the differences in ratings were more pronounced for stereotypes about the different targets than between the genders of the raters. Alarmingly, many AI-generated counter-stereotypes were perceived as offensive and/or implausible. Our analysis and the collected dataset offer foundational insight into counter-stereotype generation, guiding future efforts to develop strategies that effectively challenge gender stereotypes in online interactions.

In real world, large language models (LLMs) can serve as the assistant to help users accomplish their jobs, and also support the development of advanced applications. For the wide application of LLMs, the inference efficiency is an essential concern, which has been widely studied in existing work, and numerous optimization algorithms and code libraries have been proposed to improve it. Nonetheless, users still find it challenging to compare the effectiveness of all the above methods and understand the underlying mechanisms. In this work, we perform a detailed coarse-to-fine analysis of the inference performance of various code libraries. To evaluate the overall effectiveness, we examine four usage scenarios within two practical applications. We further provide both theoretical and empirical fine-grained analyses of each module in the Transformer architecture. Our experiments yield comprehensive results that are invaluable for researchers to evaluate code libraries and improve inference strategies.

Speakers sometimes omit certain arguments of a predicate in a sentence; such omission is especially frequent in pro-drop languages. This study addresses a question about ellipsis -- what can explain the native speakers' ellipsis decisions? -- motivated by the interest in human discourse processing and writing assistance for this choice. To this end, we first collect large-scale human annotations of whether and why a particular argument should be omitted across over 2,000 data points in the balanced corpus of Japanese, a prototypical pro-drop language. The data indicate that native speakers overall share common criteria for such judgments and further clarify their quantitative characteristics, e.g., the distribution of related linguistic factors in the balanced corpus. Furthermore, the performance of the language model-based argument ellipsis judgment model is examined, and the gap between the systems' prediction and human judgments in specific linguistic aspects is revealed. We hope our fundamental resource encourages further studies on natural human ellipsis judgment.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have become the go-to solution for many Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks due to their ability to tackle various problems and produce high-quality results. Specifically, they are increasingly used to automatically generate code, easing the burden on developers by handling repetitive tasks. However, this improvement in quality has led to high computational and memory demands, making LLMs inaccessible to users with limited resources. In this paper, we focus on Central Processing Unit (CPU)-compatible models and conduct a thorough semi-manual evaluation of their strengths and weaknesses in generating Python code. We enhance their performance by introducing a Chain-of-Thought prompt that guides the model in problem-solving. Additionally, we propose a dataset of 60 programming problems with varying difficulty levels for evaluation purposes. Our assessment also includes testing these models on two state-of-the-art datasets: HumanEval and EvalPlus. We commit to sharing our dataset and experimental results publicly to ensure transparency.

As large language models (LLMs) become increasingly commonplace, concern about distinguishing between human and AI text increases as well. The growing power of these models is of particular concern to teachers, who may worry that students will use LLMs to write school assignments. Facing a technology with which they are unfamiliar, teachers may turn to publicly-available AI text detectors. Yet the accuracy of many of these detectors has not been thoroughly verified, posing potential harm to students who are falsely accused of academic dishonesty. In this paper, we evaluate three different AI text detectors--Kirchenbauer et al. watermarks, ZeroGPT, and GPTZero--against human and AI-generated essays. We find that watermarking results in a high false positive rate, and that ZeroGPT has both high false positive and false negative rates. Further, we are able to significantly increase the false negative rate of all detectors by using ChatGPT 3.5 to paraphrase the original AI-generated texts, thereby effectively bypassing the detectors.