LLMs are increasingly prompted with different user profiles to solve subjective NLP tasks. What are the factors which determine what the model generates?

Discover it in our #EACL2024 paper – learn more in this 🧵 (1/8).

📰 https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.07034

#NLProc #Prompting

Sensitivity, Performance, Robustness: Deconstructing the Effect of Sociodemographic Prompting

Annotators' sociodemographic backgrounds (i.e., the individual compositions of their gender, age, educational background, etc.) have a strong impact on their decisions when working on subjective NLP tasks, such as toxic language detection. Often, heterogeneous backgrounds result in high disagreements. To model this variation, recent work has explored sociodemographic prompting, a technique, which steers the output of prompt-based models towards answers that humans with specific sociodemographic profiles would give. However, the available NLP literature disagrees on the efficacy of this technique - it remains unclear for which tasks and scenarios it can help, and the role of the individual factors in sociodemographic prompting is still unexplored. We address this research gap by presenting the largest and most comprehensive study of sociodemographic prompting today. We analyze its influence on model sensitivity, performance and robustness across seven datasets and six instruction-tuned model families. We show that sociodemographic information affects model predictions and can be beneficial for improving zero-shot learning in subjective NLP tasks. However, its outcomes largely vary for different model types, sizes, and datasets, and are subject to large variance with regards to prompt formulations. Most importantly, our results show that sociodemographic prompting should be used with care for sensitive applications, such as toxicity annotation or when studying LLM alignment. Code and data: https://github.com/UKPLab/arxiv2023-sociodemographic-prompting

arXiv.org

Sociodemographic prompting refers to the idea of enriching a prompt with user profile information such as the gender, race, age, and education level. We expect the model’s output to be aligned with the sociodemographic profile described.

(2/🧵) #EACL2024 #NLProc

❗ This is very promising, e.g. for dataset augmentation or human survey simulation.

How sensitive are different models to this prompting technique and why? Does it improve classification for subjective tasks, such as hate speech? And how robust is it after all?

(3/🧵) #EACL2024 #NLProc

We analyze 17 diverse instruction-tuned LLMs across seven datasets reflecting 4 different subjective NLP tasks (i.e., sentiment, hate speech, toxicity, stance).

(4/🧵) #EACL2024 #NLProc

What are the effects of sociodemographic prompts?
- InstructGPT/OPT-IML are less affected than other models
- Shorter texts lead to more changes
- If the text led to disagreement among annotators, prompting results from different sociodemographic profiles tend to disagree.

(5/🧵) #EACL2024 #NLProc

Let’s dig deeper into the influence of the model 🕵️: the predictions are dominated by the model family in use!
When prompted with different gender values, InstructGPT places at least 10% of its predictions on label 1 while OPT-IML none, independent of the gender value.

(6/🧵) #EACL2024 #NLProc

Sentiment and toxicity classification benefit from sociodemographic prompting in zero-shot classification.
Could we also use it to identify instances which will likely result in disagreement during annotation? Flan-T5 does a decent job with an avg 0.62 F1.

(7/🧵) #EACL2024 #NLProc

Takeaway? Sociodemographic prompting should be used with care ⚠️

If you are interested in the details of this work, you will find more information in the paper & code at:

📄 Paper: ​​https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.07034
💻 Code: https://github.com/UKPLab/arxiv2023-sociodemographic-prompting/

(8/🧵) #EACL2024 #NLProc

Sensitivity, Performance, Robustness: Deconstructing the Effect of Sociodemographic Prompting

Annotators' sociodemographic backgrounds (i.e., the individual compositions of their gender, age, educational background, etc.) have a strong impact on their decisions when working on subjective NLP tasks, such as toxic language detection. Often, heterogeneous backgrounds result in high disagreements. To model this variation, recent work has explored sociodemographic prompting, a technique, which steers the output of prompt-based models towards answers that humans with specific sociodemographic profiles would give. However, the available NLP literature disagrees on the efficacy of this technique - it remains unclear for which tasks and scenarios it can help, and the role of the individual factors in sociodemographic prompting is still unexplored. We address this research gap by presenting the largest and most comprehensive study of sociodemographic prompting today. We analyze its influence on model sensitivity, performance and robustness across seven datasets and six instruction-tuned model families. We show that sociodemographic information affects model predictions and can be beneficial for improving zero-shot learning in subjective NLP tasks. However, its outcomes largely vary for different model types, sizes, and datasets, and are subject to large variance with regards to prompt formulations. Most importantly, our results show that sociodemographic prompting should be used with care for sensitive applications, such as toxicity annotation or when studying LLM alignment. Code and data: https://github.com/UKPLab/arxiv2023-sociodemographic-prompting

arXiv.org

And consider getting in touch with the authors Tilman Beck, Hendrik Schuff, Anne Lauscher (Universität Hamburg) and Iryna Gurevych (@UKPLab), if you are interested in more information or an exchange of ideas.

See you this week in Malta!

(9/9) #EACL2024 #NLProc #Prompting #InstructGPT #LLMs