Cited by 35Information Retrieval and Search BehaviorTopic ModelingRecommender Systems and Techniques

Neural Retrievers are Biased Towards LLM-Generated Content

Open access
Dai, Sunhao, Zhou, Yuqi, Pang, Liang, Liu, Weihao, Hu, Xiaolin, Liu, Yong, Zhang, Xiao, Wang, Gang +1 more·2024·Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining

Abstract

Recently, the emergence of large language models (LLMs) has revolutionized the paradigm of information retrieval (IR) applications, especially in web search, by generating vast amounts of human-like texts on the Internet. As a result, IR systems in the LLM era are facing a new challenge: the indexed documents are now not only written by human beings but also automatically generated by the LLMs. How these LLM-generated documents influence the IR systems is a pressing and still unexplored question. In this work, we conduct a quantitative evaluation of IR models in scenarios where both human-written and LLM-generated texts are involved. Surprisingly, our findings indicate that neural retrieval models tend to rank LLM-generated documents higher. We refer to this category of biases in neural retrievers towards the LLM-generated content as the source bias. Moreover, we discover that this bias is not confined to the first-stage neural retrievers, but extends to the second-stage neural re-rankers. Then, in-depth analyses from the perspective of text compression indicate that LLM-generated texts exhibit more focused semantics with less noise, making it easier for neural retrieval models to semantic match. To mitigate the source bias, we also propose a plug-and-play debiased constraint for the optimization objective, and experimental results show its effectiveness. Finally, we discuss the potential severe concerns stemming from the observed source bias and hope our findings can serve as a critical wake-up call to the IR community and beyond. To facilitate future explorations of IR in the LLM era, the constructed two new benchmarks are available at https://github.com/KID-22/Source-Bias.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3637528.3671882

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 48

  1. Ian L Alberts, Lorenzo Mercolli, Thomas Pyka, George Prenosil, Kuangyu Shi, Axel Rominger, and Ali Afshar-Oromieh. 2023. Large language models (LLM) and ChatGPT: what will the impact on nuclear medicine be? European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging 50, 6 (2023), 1549-1552.
  2. Sina Alemohammad, Josue Casco-Rodriguez, Lorenzo Luzi, Ahmed Imtiaz Hu- mayun, Hossein Babaei, Daniel LeJeune, Ali Siahkoohi, and Richard G Baraniuk. 2023. Self-consuming generative models go mad. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.01850 (2023). · arXiv
  3. Yoshua Bengio, Geoffrey Hinton, Andrew Yao, Dawn Song, Pieter Abbeel, Yu- val Noah Harari, Ya-Qin Zhang, Lan Xue, Shai Shalev-Shwartz, Gillian Had- field, et al. 2023. Managing ai risks in an era of rapid progress. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.17688 (2023). · arXiv
  4. Martin Briesch, Dominik Sobania, and Franz Rothlauf. 2023. Large Language Models Suffer From Their Own Output: An Analysis of the Self-Consuming Training Loop. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.16822 (2023). · arXiv
  5. Sébastien Bubeck, Varun Chandrasekaran, Ronen Eldan, Johannes Gehrke, Eric Horvitz, Ece Kamar, Peter Lee, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, Scott Lundberg, et al. 2023. Sparks of artificial general intelligence: Early experiments with gpt-4. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.12712 (2023). · arXiv
  6. Yihan Cao, Siyu Li, Yixin Liu, Zhiling Yan, Yutong Dai, Philip S Yu, and Lichao Sun. 2023. A comprehensive survey of ai-generated content (aigc): A history of generative ai from gan to chatgpt. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.04226 (2023). · arXiv
  7. Canyu Chen and Kai Shu. 2023. Can LLM-Generated Misinformation Be Detected? arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.13788 (2023). · arXiv
  8. Sukmin Cho, Soyeong Jeong, Jeongyeon Seo, and Jong C Park. 2023. Discrete Prompt Optimization via Constrained Generation for Zero-shot Re-ranker. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13729 (2023). · arXiv
  9. Zhuyun Dai, Vincent Y Zhao, Ji Ma, Yi Luan, Jianmo Ni, Jing Lu, Anton Bakalov, Kelvin Guu, Keith B Hall, and Ming-Wei Chang. 2022. Promptagator: Few-shot dense retrieval from 8 examples. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.11755 (2022). · arXiv
  10. Grégoire Delétang, Anian Ruoss, Paul-Ambroise Duquenne, Elliot Catt, Tim Genewein, Christopher Mattern, Jordi Grau-Moya, Li Kevin Wenliang, Matthew Aitchison, Laurent Orseau, et al. 2023. Language modeling is compression. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.10668 (2023). · arXiv
  11. Ameet Deshpande, Vishvak Murahari, Tanmay Rajpurohit, Ashwin Kalyan, and Karthik Narasimhan. 2023. Toxicity in chatgpt: Analyzing persona-assigned language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.05335 (2023). · arXiv
  12. Biyang Guo, Xin Zhang, Ziyuan Wang, Minqi Jiang, Jinran Nie, Yuxuan Ding, Jianwei Yue, and Yupeng Wu. 2023. How Close is ChatGPT to Human Experts? Comparison Corpus, Evaluation, and Detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.07597 (2023). · arXiv
  13. Zoltán Gyöngyi, Hector Garcia-Molina, and Jan Pedersen. 2004. Combating web spam with trustrank. In Proceedings of the Thirtieth international conference on Very large data bases-Volume 30. 576-587.
  14. Hans WA Hanley and Zakir Durumeric. 2023. Machine-Made Media: Moni- toring the Mobilization of Machine-Generated Articles on Misinformation and Mainstream News Websites. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.09820 (2023). · arXiv
  15. Gautier Izacard, Mathilde Caron, Lucas Hosseini, Sebastian Riedel, Piotr Bo- janowski, Armand Joulin, and Edouard Grave. 2021. Unsupervised dense in- formation retrieval with contrastive learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.09118 (2021). · arXiv
  16. Gautier Izacard, Patrick Lewis, Maria Lomeli, Lucas Hosseini, Fabio Petroni, Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Armand Joulin, Sebastian Riedel, and Edouard Grave. 2022. Few-shot learning with retrieval augmented language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.03299 (2022). · arXiv
  17. Bohan Jiang, Zhen Tan, Ayushi Nirmal, and Huan Liu. 2023. Disinformation Detec- tion: An Evolving Challenge in the Age of LLMs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.15847 (2023). · arXiv
  18. Tie-Yan Liu et al. 2009. Learning to rank for information retrieval. Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval 3, 3 (2009), 225-331.
  19. Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692 (2019). · arXiv
  20. Rodrigo Nogueira, Zhiying Jiang, and Jimmy Lin. 2020. Document ranking with a pretrained sequence-to-sequence model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.06713 (2020). · arXiv
  21. Desnes Nunes, Ricardo Primi, Ramon Pires, Roberto de Alencar Lotufo, and Rodrigo Nogueira. 2023. Evaluating GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 Models on Brazilian University Admission Exams. ArXiv abs/2303.17003 (2023). · arXiv
  22. Yikang Pan, Liangming Pan, Wenhu Chen, Preslav Nakov, Min-Yen Kan, and William Yang Wang. 2023. On the Risk of Misinformation Pollution with Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13661 (2023). · arXiv
  23. Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. The Journal of Machine Learning Research 21, 1 (2020), 5485-5551.
  24. Vinu Sankar Sadasivan, Aounon Kumar, S. Balasubramanian, Wenxiao Wang, and Soheil Feizi. 2023. Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected? ArXiv abs/2303.11156 (2023). https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:257631570 · arXiv
  25. Weijia Shi, Sewon Min, Michihiro Yasunaga, Minjoon Seo, Rich James, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Wen-tau Yih. 2023. Replug: Retrieval-augmented black-box language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.12652 (2023). · arXiv
  26. Ilia Shumailov, Zakhar Shumaylov, Yiren Zhao, Yarin Gal, Nicolas Papernot, and Ross Anderson. 2023. Model dementia: Generated data makes models forget. arXiv e-prints (2023), arXiv-2305.
  27. Giovanni Spitale, Nikola Biller-Andorno, and Federico Germani. 2023. AI model GPT-3 (dis) informs us better than humans. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.11924 (2023). · arXiv
  28. Jinyan Su, Terry Yue Zhuo, Jonibek Mansurov, Di Wang, and Preslav Nakov. 2023. Fake News Detectors are Biased against Texts Generated by Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arxiv:2309.08674 (2023). · arXiv
  29. Weiwei Sun, Lingyong Yan, Xinyu Ma, Pengjie Ren, Dawei Yin, and Zhaochun Ren. 2023. Is ChatGPT Good at Search? Investigating Large Language Models as Re-Ranking Agent. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.09542 (2023). · arXiv
  30. Nandan Thakur, Nils Reimers, Andreas Rücklé, Abhishek Srivastava, and Iryna Gurevych. 2021. BEIR: A Heterogeneous Benchmark for Zero-shot Evaluation of Information Retrieval Models. In Thirty-fifth Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track.
  31. Arun James Thirunavukarasu, Darren Shu Jeng Ting, Kabilan Elangovan, Laura Gutierrez, Ting Fang Tan, and Daniel Shu Wei Ting. 2023. Large language models in medicine. Nature medicine 29, 8 (2023), 1930-1940.
  32. Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yas- mine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhos- ale, et al. 2023. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288 (2023). · arXiv
  33. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017).
  34. David Wadden, Shanchuan Lin, Kyle Lo, Lucy Lu Wang, Madeleine van Zuylen, Arman Cohan, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2020. Fact or fiction: Verifying scientific claims. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.14974 (2020). · arXiv
  35. Alex Wang and Kyunghyun Cho. 2019. BERT has a mouth, and it must speak: BERT as a Markov random field language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:1902.04094 (2019). · arXiv
  36. Chenguang Wang, Mu Li, and Alexander J Smola. 2019. Language models with transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.09408 (2019). · arXiv
  37. Liang Wang, Nan Yang, and Furu Wei. 2023. Query2doc: Query Expansion with Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.07678 (2023). · arXiv
  38. Tao Wang, Yushu Zhang, Shuren Qi, Ruoyu Zhao, Zhihua Xia, and Jian Weng. 2023. Security and privacy on generative data in aigc: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.09435 (2023). · arXiv
  39. Jason Wei, Yi Tay, Rishi Bommasani, Colin Raffel, Barret Zoph, Sebastian Borgeaud, Dani Yogatama, Maarten Bosma, Denny Zhou, Donald Metzler, et al. 2022. Emergent abilities of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.07682 (2022). · arXiv
  40. Jiayang Wu, Wensheng Gan, Zefeng Chen, Shicheng Wan, and Hong Lin. 2023. Ai-generated content (aigc): A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.06632 (2023). · arXiv
  41. Shijie Wu, Ozan Irsoy, Steven Lu, Vadim Dabravolski, Mark Dredze, Sebas- tian Gehrmann, Prabhanjan Kambadur, David Rosenberg, and Gideon Mann. 2023. Bloomberggpt: A large language model for finance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.17564 (2023). · arXiv
  42. Lee Xiong, Chenyan Xiong, Ye Li, Kwok-Fung Tang, Jialin Liu, Paul Bennett, Junaid Ahmed, and Arnold Overwijk. 2020. Approximate nearest neighbor nega- tive contrastive learning for dense text retrieval. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.00808 (2020). · arXiv
  43. Jun Xu and Hang Li. 2007. Adarank: a boosting algorithm for information retrieval. In Proceedings of the 30th annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval. 391-398.
  44. Jingfeng Yang, Hongye Jin, Ruixiang Tang, Xiaotian Han, Qizhang Feng, Haoming Jiang, Bing Yin, and Xia Hu. 2023. Harnessing the power of llms in practice: A survey on chatgpt and beyond. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.13712 (2023). · arXiv
  45. Wayne Xin Zhao, Jing Liu, Ruiyang Ren, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2023. Dense Text Retrieval based on Pretrained Language Models: A Survey. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. (dec 2023).
  46. Wayne Xin Zhao, Kun Zhou, Junyi Li, Tianyi Tang, Xiaolei Wang, Yupeng Hou, Yingqian Min, Beichen Zhang, Junjie Zhang, Zican Dong, et al. 2023. A survey of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.18223 (2023). · arXiv
  47. Yutao Zhu, Huaying Yuan, Shuting Wang, Jiongnan Liu, Wenhan Liu, Chen- long Deng, Zhicheng Dou, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2023. Large language models for information retrieval: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.07107 (2023). · arXiv
  48. Terry Yue Zhuo, Yujin Huang, Chunyang Chen, and Zhenchang Xing. 2023. Ex- ploring ai ethics of chatgpt: A diagnostic analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.12867 (2023). · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dai, S., Zhou, Y., Pang, L., Liu, W., Hu, X., Liu, Y., Zhang, X., Wang, G., & Xu, J.
Affiliations
  • Renmin University of China (CN)
  • Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN)
  • Huawei Technologies (China) (CN)
Venue
Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining
Publisher
ACM
Published
2024-08-24
Pages
526-537
OpenAlex
W4401863498
Cited by
35
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 5
FWCI
13.19
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Youth Innovation Promotion Association CAS (2023111)
  • Beijing Natural Science Foundation (4222029)
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (62276248, 62376275,62377044,62076234)
  • National Key Research and Development Program of China (2023YFA1008704)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
Keywords
source bias, LLM-generated content, neural retrieval, neural reranking, information retrieval, large language models, text compression, bias mitigation, benchmark design, semantic matching

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