Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 31

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

WorldBench: Quantifying Geographic Disparities in LLM Factual Recall

Moayeri, Mazda, Tabassi, Elham, Feizi, Soheil·2024·The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency

Abstract

As large language models (LLMs) continue to improve and gain popularity, some may use the models to recall facts, despite well documented limitations with LLM factuality. Towards ensuring that models work reliably for all, we seek to uncover if geographic disparities emerge when asking an LLM the same question about different countries. To this end, we present WorldBench, a dynamic and flexible benchmark composed of per-country data from the World Bank. In extensive experiments on state of the art open and closed source models, including GPT-4, Gemini, Llama-2, and Vicuna, to name a few, we find significant biases based on region and income level. For example, error rates are 1.5 times higher for countries from Sub-Saharan Africa compared to North American countries. We observe these disparities to be consistent over 20 LLMs and 11 individual World Bank indicators (i.e. specific statistics, such as population or CO2 emissions). WorldBench also enables automatic detection of citation hallucination, where models cite the World Bank itself while providing false statistics, and a manner to assess when an LLM’s stored facts begin to go out of date. We hope our benchmark will draw attention to geographic disparities in existing LLMs and facilitate the remedying of these biases.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3630106.3658967

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. Rohan Anil et al. 2023. PaLM 2 Technical Report. arxiv:2305.10403 [cs.CL] · arXiv
  2. Joy Buolamwini and Timnit Gebru. 2018. Gender Shades: Intersectional Accuracy Disparities in Commercial Gender Classification. In Proceedings of the 1st Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency(Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 81), Sorelle A. Friedler and Christo Wilson (Eds.). PMLR, 77–91. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v81/buolamwini18a.html
  3. Joy Buolamwini and Timnit Gebru. 2018. Gender Shades: Intersectional Accuracy Disparities in Commercial Gender Classification. In Conference on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency, FAT 2018, 23-24 February 2018, New York, NY, USA(Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 81), Sorelle A. Friedler and Christo Wilson (Eds.). PMLR, 77–91. http://proceedings.mlr.press/v81/buolamwini18a.html
  4. Terrance DeVries Ishan Misra Changhan Wang and Laurens van der Maaten. 2019. Does Object Recognition Work for Everyone?arxiv:1906.02659 [cs.CV] · arXiv
  5. Laura Gustafson Megan Richards Melissa Hall Caner Hazirbas Diane Bouchacourt and Mark Ibrahim. 2023. Pinpointing Why Object Recognition Performance Degrades Across Income Levels and Geographies. arxiv:2304.05391 [cs.CV] · arXiv
  6. Melissa Hall, Candace Ross, Adina Williams, Nicolas Carion, Michal Drozdzal, and Adriana Romero-Soriano. 2024. DIG In: Evaluating Disparities in Image Generations with Indicators for Geographic Diversity. Transactions on Machine Learning Research (2024). https://openreview.net/forum?id=FDt2UGM1Nz Featured Certification.
  7. Lei Huang Weijiang Yu Weitao Ma Weihong Zhong Zhangyin Feng Haotian Wang Qianglong Chen Weihua Peng Xiaocheng Feng Bing Qin and Ting Liu. 2023. A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles Taxonomy Challenges and Open Questions. arxiv:2311.05232 [cs.CL] · arXiv
  8. Nikhil Kandpal Haikang Deng Adam Roberts Eric Wallace and Colin Raffel. 2023. Large Language Models Struggle to Learn Long-Tail Knowledge. arxiv:2211.08411 [cs.CL] · arXiv
  9. Jungo Kasai Yuhei Kasai Keisuke Sakaguchi Yutaro Yamada and Dragomir Radev. 2023. Evaluating GPT-4 and ChatGPT on Japanese Medical Licensing Examinations. arxiv:2303.18027 [cs.CL] · arXiv
  10. 10.2139/ssrn.4389233 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Arindam Mitra Luciano Del Corro Shweti Mahajan Andres Codas Clarisse Simoes Sahaj Agrawal Xuxi Chen Anastasia Razdaibiedina Erik Jones Kriti Aggarwal Hamid Palangi Guoqing Zheng Corby Rosset Hamed Khanpour and Ahmed Awadallah. 2023. Orca 2: Teaching Small Language Models How to Reason. arxiv:2311.11045 [cs.AI] · arXiv
  12. Harsha Nori, Nicholas King, Scott Mayer McKinney, Dean Carignan, and Eric Horvitz. 2023. Capabilities of GPT-4 on Medical Challenge Problems. ArXiv abs/2303.13375 (2023). https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:257687695 · arXiv
  13. Jessica Ojo Kelechi Ogueji Pontus Stenetorp and David I. Adelani. 2023. How good are Large Language Models on African Languages?arxiv:2311.07978 [cs.CL] · arXiv
  14. Baptiste Rozière, Jonas Gehring, Fabian Gloeckle, Sten Sootla, Itai Gat, Xiaoqing Ellen Tan, Yossi Adi, Jingyu Liu, Tal Remez, Jérémy Rapin, Artyom Kozhevnikov, Ivan Evtimov, Joanna Bitton, Manish Bhatt, Cristian Canton Ferrer, Aaron Grattafiori, Wenhan Xiong, Alexandre Défossez, Jade Copet, Faisal Azhar, Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Nicolas Usunier, Thomas Scialom, and Gabriel Synnaeve. 2023. Code Llama: Open Foundation Models for Code. arxiv:2308.12950 [cs.CL] · arXiv
  15. Kai Sun Yifan Ethan Xu Hanwen Zha Yue Liu and Xin Luna Dong. 2023. Head-to-Tail: How Knowledgeable are Large Language Models (LLM)? A.K.A. Will LLMs Replace Knowledge Graphs?arxiv:2308.10168 [cs.CL] · arXiv
  16. Zhiqing Sun, Xuezhi Wang, Yi Tay, Yiming Yang, and Denny Zhou. 2023. Recitation-Augmented Language Models. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations. https://openreview.net/forum?id=-cqvvvb-NkI
  17. Liyan Tang Tanya Goyal Alexander R. Fabbri Philippe Laban Jiacheng Xu Semih Yavuz Wojciech Kryściński Justin F. Rousseau and Greg Durrett. 2023. Understanding Factual Errors in Summarization: Errors Summarizers Datasets Error Detectors. arxiv:2205.12854 [cs.CL] · DOI
  18. Gemini Team. 2023. Gemini: A Family of Highly Capable Multimodal Models. arxiv:2312.11805 [cs.CL] · arXiv
  19. Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin R. Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, Daniel M. Bikel, Lukas Blecher, Cristian Cantón Ferrer, Moya Chen, Guillem Cucurull, David Esiobu, Jude Fernandes, Jeremy Fu, Wenyin Fu, Brian Fuller, Cynthia Gao, Vedanuj Goswami, Naman Goyal, Anthony S. Hartshorn, Saghar Hosseini, Rui Hou, Hakan Inan, Marcin Kardas, Viktor Kerkez, Madian Khabsa, Isabel M. Kloumann, A. V. Korenev, Punit Singh Koura, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Thibaut Lavril, Jenya Lee, Diana Liskovich, Yinghai Lu, Yuning Mao, Xavier Martinet, Todor Mihaylov, Pushkar Mishra, Igor Molybog, Yixin Nie, Andrew Poulton, Jeremy Reizenstein, Rashi Rungta, Kalyan Saladi, Alan Schelten, Ruan Silva, Eric Michael Smith, R. Subramanian, Xia Tan, Binh Tang, Ross Taylor, Adina Williams, Jian Xiang Kuan, Puxin Xu, Zhengxu Yan, Iliyan Zarov, Yuchen Zhang, Angela Fan, Melanie Kambadur, Sharan Narang, Aurelien Rodriguez, Robert Stojnic, Sergey Edunov, and Thomas Scialom. 2023. Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Models. ArXiv abs/2307.09288 (2023). https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:259950998 · arXiv
  20. Lewis Tunstall, Edward Beeching, Nathan Lambert, Nazneen Rajani, Kashif Rasul, Younes Belkada, Shengyi Huang, Leandro von Werra, Clémentine Fourrier, Nathan Habib, Nathan Sarrazin, Omar Sanseviero, Alexander M. Rush, and Thomas Wolf. 2023. Zephyr: Direct Distillation of LM Alignment. arxiv:2310.16944 [cs.LG] · arXiv
  21. Thomas Wolf Lysandre Debut Victor Sanh Julien Chaumond Clement Delangue Anthony Moi Pierric Cistac Tim Rault Rémi Louf Morgan Funtowicz Joe Davison Sam Shleifer Patrick von Platen Clara Ma Yacine Jernite Julien Plu Canwen Xu Teven Le Scao Sylvain Gugger Mariama Drame Quentin Lhoest and Alexander M. Rush. 2020. HuggingFace’s Transformers: State-of-the-art Natural Language Processing. arxiv:1910.03771 [cs.CL] · DOI · Paper page
  22. Yifan Zhang, Cheng Wei, Shangyou Wu, Zhengting He, and Wenhao Yu. 2023. GeoGPT: Understanding and Processing Geospatial Tasks through An Autonomous GPT. ArXiv abs/2307.07930 (2023). https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:259937048 · arXiv
  23. Lianmin Zheng Wei-Lin Chiang Ying Sheng Siyuan Zhuang Zhanghao Wu Yonghao Zhuang Zi Lin Zhuohan Li Dacheng Li Eric P. Xing Hao Zhang Joseph E. Gonzalez and Ion Stoica. 2023. Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena. arxiv:2306.05685 [cs.CL] · arXiv

Metadata

Authors
Moayeri, M., Tabassi, E., & Feizi, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Maryland, United States of America
  • Michigan State University, USA
Venue
The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency
Publisher
ACM
Published
2024-06-03
Pages
1211-1228
Cited by
31
References
5
Funders
  • Army Research Laboratory (W911NF2120076)
  • ARO (310902-00001)
  • DARPA/GARD (HR001119S0026)
  • National Science Foundation (CCF2212458)
  • ONR (N00014-22-1-2271)
  • NSF Career (1942230)
  • DARPA/RED (HR00112090132)
  • NSF Trails (2229885)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.