Large Language Models Sensitivity to The Order of Options in Multiple-Choice Questions

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in various NLP tasks. However, previous works have shown these models are sensitive towards prompt wording, and few-shot demonstrations and their order, posing challenges to fair assessment of these models. As these models become more powerful, it becomes imperative to understand and address these limitations. In this paper, we focus on LLMs robustness on the task of multiple-choice questions -- commonly adopted task to study reasoning and fact-retrieving capability of LLMs. Investigating the sensitivity of LLMs towards the order of options in multiple-choice questions, we demonstrate a considerable performance gap of approximately 13% to 75% in LLMs on different benchmarks, when answer options are reordered, even when using demonstrations in a few-shot setting. Through a detailed analysis, we conjecture that this sensitivity arises when LLMs are uncertain about the prediction between the top-2/3 choices, and specific options placements may favor certain prediction between those top choices depending on the question caused by positional bias. We also identify patterns in top-2 choices that amplify or mitigate the model's bias toward option placement. We found that for amplifying bias, the optimal strategy involves positioning the top two choices as the first and last options. Conversely, to mitigate bias, we recommend placing these choices among the adjacent options. To validate our conjecture, we conduct various experiments and adopt two approaches to calibrate LLMs' predictions, leading to up to 8 percentage points improvement across different models and benchmarks

Quantifying Social Biases Using Templates is Unreliable

Recently, there has been an increase in efforts to understand how large language models (LLMs) propagate and amplify social biases. Several works have utilized templates for fairness evaluation, which allow researchers to quantify social biases in the absence of test sets with protected attribute labels. While template evaluation can be a convenient and helpful diagnostic tool to understand model deficiencies, it often uses a simplistic and limited set of templates. In this paper, we study whether bias measurements are sensitive to the choice of templates used for benchmarking. Specifically, we investigate the instability of bias measurements by manually modifying templates proposed in previous works in a semantically-preserving manner and measuring bias across these modifications. We find that bias values and resulting conclusions vary considerably across template modifications on four tasks, ranging from an 81% reduction (NLI) to a 162% increase (MLM) in (task-specific) bias measurements. Our results indicate that quantifying fairness in LLMs, as done in current practice, can be brittle and needs to be approached with more care and caution

Distilling Large Language Models using Skill-Occupation Graph Context for HR-Related Tasks

Numerous HR applications are centered around resumes and job descriptions. While they can benefit from advancements in NLP, particularly large language models, their real-world adoption faces challenges due to absence of comprehensive benchmarks for various HR tasks, and lack of smaller models with competitive capabilities. In this paper, we aim to bridge this gap by introducing the Resume-Job Description Benchmark (RJDB). We meticulously craft this benchmark to cater to a wide array of HR tasks, including matching and explaining resumes to job descriptions, extracting skills and experiences from resumes, and editing resumes. To create this benchmark, we propose to distill domain-specific knowledge from a large language model (LLM). We rely on a curated skill-occupation graph to ensure diversity and provide context for LLMs generation. Our benchmark includes over 50 thousand triples of job descriptions, matched resumes and unmatched resumes. Using RJDB, we train multiple smaller student models. Our experiments reveal that the student models achieve near/better performance than the teacher model (GPT-4), affirming the effectiveness of the benchmark. Additionally, we explore the utility of RJDB on out-of-distribution data for skill extraction and resume-job description matching, in zero-shot and weak supervision manner. We release our datasets and code to foster further research and industry applications