CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 53Ethics and Social Impacts of AITopic ModelingHate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection

The Capacity for Moral Self-Correction in Large Language Models

Open access
Ganguli, Deep, Askell, Amanda, Schiefer, Nicholas, Liao, Thomas I., Lukošiūtė, Kamilė, Chen, Anna, Goldie, Anna, Mirhoseini, Azalia +41 more·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2302.07459arXiv 2302.07459
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We test the hypothesis that language models trained with reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) have the capability to "morally self-correct" -- to avoid producing harmful outputs -- if instructed to do so. We find strong evidence in support of this hypothesis across three different experiments, each of which reveal different facets of moral self-correction. We find that the capability for moral self-correction emerges at 22B model parameters, and typically improves with increasing model size and RLHF training. We believe that at this level of scale, language models obtain two capabilities that they can use for moral self-correction: (1) they can follow instructions and (2) they can learn complex normative concepts of harm like stereotyping, bias, and discrimination. As such, they can follow instructions to avoid certain kinds of morally harmful outputs. We believe our results are cause for cautious optimism regarding the ability to train language models to abide by ethical principles.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2302.07459

Cites

1 of 1 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?

  • LLMs can properly evaluate whether a response is inappropriate.

    “LLMs can properly evaluate whether a response is inappropriate (Ganguli et al., 2023)”

    From Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yet (2023) · cites this paper as Ganguli et al., 2023

    The discussion of Constitutional AI under “Limitations of the Discrimination Experiment” says that models can determine whether their outputs violate ethical principles. The paper’s own experiments, summarized in §5.1, instead test whether instructed models avoid biased or discriminatory outputs; they do not establish that LLMs can reliably evaluate whether an arbitrary response is inappropriate. (LLM, conf=0.79)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Prompting approaches can reduce the sensitivity of CoT explanations to input perturbations and stereotypes, which our findings on prompting for debiasing corroborate.

    “Prompting approaches can reduce the sensitivity of CoT explanations to input perturbations and stereotypes (Shaikh et al., 2022;Ganguli et al., 2023;Shi et al., 2023), which our findings on prompting for debiasing corroborate.”

    From Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting (2023) · cites this paper as Ganguli et al., 2023

    In “Discrimination in Admissions” (page not specified), the paper reports that instruction-following and a CoT-based prompt reduced stereotype-bias scores in model answers. It does not test whether CoT explanations become less sensitive to input perturbations or stereotypes; its measured outcome is answer bias, not explanation sensitivity. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Recent methodologies demonstrate a significant reduction in explicit bias and toxicity within model outputs, primarily by leveraging the models' ability to identify such undesirable behaviors upon inquiry.

    “Recent methodologies demonstrate a significant reduction in explicit bias and toxicity within model outputs (Dinan et al. 2019; Bai et al. 2022; Ganguli et al. 2023), primarily by leveraging the models' ability to identify such undesirable behaviors upon inquiry.”

    From Large language models (LLMs): survey, technical frameworks, and future challenges (2024) · cites this paper as Ganguli et al. 2023

    The ‘Discrimination in Admissions’ results report an 84% reduction in the BBQ bias score when models were prompted to give unbiased answers. The paper does not report a toxicity-reduction result of its own, and its intervention asks models to avoid bias rather than to identify undesirable behavior in their outputs. Section 2, ‘Related Work,’ describes prompted self-diagnosis of bias and toxicity as a finding of earlier work. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Explicitly prompting against bias is an effective measure for reducing bias.

    “Consistent with the results in Ganguli et al. (2023) we find that explicitly prompting against bias is an effective measure for reducing bias (no instruction → instruction).”

    From Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting (2023) · cites this paper as Ganguli et al., 2023

  • Prior works have demonstrated successful usage of self-correction that aligns model responses with specific preferences, such as altering the style of responses or enhancing their safety.

    “prior works have demonstrated the successful usage of self-correction that aligns model responses with specific preferences, such as altering the style of responses or enhancing their safety (Bai et al., 2022; Ganguli et al., 2023; Madaan et al., 2023).”

    From Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yet (2023) · cites this paper as Ganguli et al., 2023

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

Part of this paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.

  • Scaling Laws for Neural Language Models

    Kaplan, J., McCandlish, S., Henighan, T., Brown, T. B., Chess, B., Child, R., Gray, S., Radford, A., Wu, J., & Amodei, D. (2020) · arXiv · Cited by 1,749 · cited 1× · see citing works

    “At the same time, scaling model size can increase model performance on a wide array of tasks [12, 25, 59].”
    BackgroundSelf-citation

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 41

  1. A. Abid, M. Farooqi, and J. Zou. Large language models associate Muslims with violence. Nature Machine Intelligence, 3(6):461-463, June 2021. Number: 6 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group.
  2. A. Askell, Y. Bai, A. Chen, D. Drain, D. Ganguli, T. Henighan, A. Jones, N. Joseph, B. Mann, N. Das- Sarma, N. Elhage, Z. Hatfield-Dodds, D. Hernandez, J. Kernion, K. Ndousse, C. Olsson, D. Amodei, T. Brown, J. Clark, S. McCandlish, C. Olah, and J. Kaplan. A General Language Assistant as a Labora- tory for Alignment. arXiv:2112.00861 [cs], Dec. 2021. arXiv: 2112.00861. · arXiv
  3. Y. Bai, A. Jones, K. Ndousse, A. Askell, A. Chen, N. DasSarma, D. Drain, S. Fort, D. Ganguli, T. Henighan, N. Joseph, S. Kadavath, J. Kernion, T. Conerly, S. El-Showk, N. Elhage, Z. Hatfield- Dodds, D. Hernandez, T. Hume, S. Johnston, S. Kravec, L. Lovitt, N. Nanda, C. Olsson, D. Amodei, T. Brown, J. Clark, S. McCandlish, C. Olah, B. Mann, and J. Kaplan. Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback, Apr. 2022. Number: arXiv:2204.05862 arXiv:2204.05862 [cs]. · arXiv
  4. C. Basta, M. R. Costa-jussà, and N. Casas. Evaluating the Underlying Gender Bias in Contextualized Word Embeddings. arXiv:1904.08783 [cs], Apr. 2019. arXiv: 1904.08783. · arXiv
  5. E. Beeghly. What is a Stereotype? What is Stereotyping? Hypatia, 30(4):675-691, 2015.
  6. E. M. Bender, T. Gebru, A. McMillan-Major, and S. Shmitchell. On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Account- ability, and Transparency, FAccT '21, pages 610-623, New York, NY, USA, Mar. 2021. Association for Computing Machinery.
  7. S. L. Blodgett, S. Barocas, H. Daumé III, and H. Wallach. Language (Technology) is Power: A Critical Survey of "Bias" in NLP. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics, pages 5454-5476, Online, July 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  8. S. L. Blodgett, G. Lopez, A. Olteanu, R. Sim, and H. Wallach. Stereotyping Norwegian Salmon: An Inventory of Pitfalls in Fairness Benchmark Datasets. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1004-1015, Online, Aug. 2021. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  9. R. Bommasani, D. A. Hudson, E. Adeli, R. Altman, S. Arora, S. von Arx, M. S. Bernstein, J. Bohg, A. Bosselut, E. Brunskill, E. Brynjolfsson, S. Buch, D. Card, R. Castellon, N. Chatterji, A. Chen, K. Creel, J. Q. Davis, D. Demszky, C. Donahue, M. Doumbouya, E. Durmus, S. Ermon, J. Etchemendy, K. Ethayarajh, L. Fei-Fei, C. Finn, T. Gale, L. Gillespie, K. Goel, N. Goodman, S. Grossman, N. Guha, T. Hashimoto, P. Henderson, J. Hewitt, D. E. Ho, J. Hong, K. Hsu, J. Huang, T. Icard, S. Jain, D. Juraf- sky, P. Kalluri, S. Karamcheti, G. Keeling, F. Khani, O. Khattab, P. W. Koh, M. Krass, R. Krishna, R. Ku- ditipudi, A. Kumar, F. Ladhak, M. Lee, T. Lee, J. Leskovec, I. Levent, X. L. Li, X. Li, T. Ma, A. Ma- lik, C. D. Manning, S. Mirchandani, E. Mitchell, Z. Munyikwa, S. Nair, A. Narayan, D. Narayanan, B. Newman, A. Nie, J. C. Niebles, H. Nilforoshan, J. Nyarko, G. Ogut, L. Orr, I. Papadimitriou, J. S. Park, C. Piech, E. Portelance, C. Potts, A. Raghunathan, R. Reich, H. Ren, F. Rong, Y. Roohani, C. Ruiz, J. Ryan, C. Ré, D. Sadigh, S. Sagawa, K. Santhanam, A. Shih, K. Srinivasan, A. Tamkin, R. Taori, A. W. Thomas, F. Tramèr, R. E. Wang, W. Wang, B. Wu, J. Wu, Y. Wu, S. M. Xie, M. Yasunaga, J. You, M. Za- haria, M. Zhang, T. Zhang, X. Zhang, Y. Zhang, L. Zheng, K. Zhou, and P. Liang. On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models. arXiv:2108.07258 [cs], Aug. 2021. arXiv: 2108.07258. · arXiv
  10. T. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, J. D. Kaplan, P. Dhariwal, A. Neelakantan, P. Shyam, G. Sastry, A. Askell, S. Agarwal, A. Herbert-Voss, G. Krueger, T. Henighan, R. Child, A. Ramesh, D. Ziegler, J. Wu, C. Winter, C. Hesse, M. Chen, E. Sigler, M. Litwin, S. Gray, B. Chess, J. Clark, C. Berner, S. McCandlish, A. Radford, I. Sutskever, and D. Amodei. Language Models are Few-Shot Learners. In H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Hadsell, M. F. Balcan, and H. Lin, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 1877-1901.
  11. P. F. Christiano, J. Leike, T. Brown, M. Martic, S. Legg, and D. Amodei. Deep Reinforcement Learning from Human Preferences. In I. Guyon, U. V. Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vish- wanathan, and R. Garnett, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30.
  12. A. Coston, A. Mishler, E. H. Kennedy, and A. Chouldechova. Counterfactual Risk Assessments, Eval- uation, and Fairness. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Trans- parency, FAT* '20, pages 582-593, New York, NY, USA, 2020. Association for Computing Machinery. event-place: Barcelona, Spain.
  13. E. Dinan, G. Abercrombie, A. S. Bergman, S. Spruit, D. Hovy, Y.-L. Boureau, and V. Rieser. Antici- pating Safety Issues in E2E Conversational AI: Framework and Tooling. arXiv:2107.03451 [cs], July 2021. arXiv: 2107.03451. · arXiv
  14. B. Eidelson. The Concept of Discrimination. In Discrimination and Disrespect. Oxford Uni- versity Press, Nov. 2015. _eprint: https://academic.oup.com/book/0/chapter/142359543/chapter-ag- pdf/45503085/book_2260_section_142359543.ag.pdf.
  15. D. Ganguli, D. Hernandez, L. Lovitt, N. DasSarma, T. Henighan, A. Jones, N. Joseph, J. Kernion, B. Mann, A. Askell, Y. Bai, A. Chen, T. Conerly, D. Drain, N. Elhage, S. E. Showk, S. Fort, Z. Hatfield- Dodds, S. Johnston, S. Kravec, N. Nanda, K. Ndousse, C. Olsson, D. Amodei, D. Amodei, T. Brown, J. Kaplan, S. McCandlish, C. Olah, and J. Clark. Predictability and Surprise in Large Generative Models. arXiv:2202.07785 [cs], Feb. 2022. arXiv: 2202.07785. · arXiv
  16. S. Gehman, S. Gururangan, M. Sap, Y. Choi, and N. A. Smith. RealToxicityPrompts: Evaluating Neural Toxic Degeneration in Language Models. ArXiv, abs/2009.11462, 2020. · arXiv
  17. D. Hovy and S. L. Spruit. The Social Impact of Natural Language Processing. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 591-598, Berlin, Germany, Aug. 2016. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  18. B. Hutchinson, V. Prabhakaran, E. Denton, K. Webster, Y. Zhong, and S. Denuyl. Social Biases in NLP Models as Barriers for Persons with Disabilities. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5491-5501, Online, July 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  19. A. Kasirzadeh and A. Smart. The Use and Misuse of Counterfactuals in Ethical Machine Learning. In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, FAccT '21, pages 228-236, New York, NY, USA, 2021. Association for Computing Machinery. event-place: Virtual Event, Canada.
  20. P. Kim. Race-Aware Algorithms: Fairness, Nondiscrimination and Affirmative Action. California Law Review, 110(Washington University in St. Louis Legal Studies Research Paper No. 22-01-02):1539- 1596, Jan. 2022.
  21. T. Kojima, S. S. Gu, M. Reid, Y. Matsuo, and Y. Iwasawa. Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners. In A. H. Oh, A. Agarwal, D. Belgrave, and K. Cho, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2022.
  22. K. Kurita, N. Vyas, A. Pareek, A. W. Black, and Y. Tsvetkov. Measuring Bias in Contextualized Word Representations. arXiv:1906.07337 [cs], June 2019. arXiv: 1906.07337. · arXiv
  23. M. J. Kusner, J. Loftus, C. Russell, and R. Silva. Counterfactual Fairness. In I. Guyon, U. V. Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan, and R. Garnett, editors, Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems, volume 30.
  24. K. Leins, J. H. Lau, and T. Baldwin. Give Me Convenience and Give Her Death: Who Should Decide What Uses of NLP are Appropriate, and on What Basis? In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2908-2913, Online, July 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  25. T. Li, D. Khashabi, T. Khot, A. Sabharwal, and V. Srikumar. UNQOVERing Stereotyping Biases via Underspecified Questions. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 3475-3489, Online, Nov. 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  26. M. Nadeem, A. Bethke, and S. Reddy. StereoSet: Measuring stereotypical bias in pretrained language models. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5356-5371, Online, Aug. 2021. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  27. N. Nangia, C. Vania, R. Bhalerao, and S. R. Bowman. CrowS-Pairs: A Challenge Dataset for Measuring Social Biases in Masked Language Models. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 1953-1967, Online, Nov. 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  28. A. Parrish, A. Chen, N. Nangia, V. Padmakumar, J. Phang, J. Thompson, P. M. Htut, and S. Bow- man. BBQ: A hand-built bias benchmark for question answering. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022, pages 2086-2105, Dublin, Ireland, May 2022. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  29. J. W. Rae, S. Borgeaud, T. Cai, K. Millican, J. Hoffmann, F. Song, J. Aslanides, S. Henderson, R. Ring, S. Young, E. Rutherford, T. Hennigan, J. Menick, A. Cassirer, R. Powell, G. v. d. Driessche, L. A. Hen- dricks, M. Rauh, P.-S. Huang, A. Glaese, J. Welbl, S. Dathathri, S. Huang, J. Uesato, J. Mellor, I. Hig- gins, A. Creswell, N. McAleese, A. Wu, E. Elsen, S. Jayakumar, E. Buchatskaya, D. Budden, E. Suther- land, K. Simonyan, M. Paganini, L. Sifre, L. Martens, X. L. Li, A. Kuncoro, A. Nematzadeh, E. Gri- bovskaya, D. Donato, A. Lazaridou, A. Mensch, J.-B. Lespiau, M. Tsimpoukelli, N. Grigorev, D. Fritz, T. Sottiaux, M. Pajarskas, T. Pohlen, Z. Gong, D. Toyama, C. d. M. d'Autume, Y. Li, T. Terzi, V. Miku- lik, I. Babuschkin, A. Clark, D. d. L. Casas, A. Guy, C. Jones, J. Bradbury, M. Johnson, B. Hechtman, L. Weidinger, I. Gabriel, W. Isaac, E. Lockhart, S. Osindero, L. Rimell, C. Dyer, O. Vinyals, K. Ayoub, J. Stanway, L. Bennett, D. Hassabis, K. Kavukcuoglu, and G. Irving. Scaling Language Models: Meth- ods, Analysis & Insights from Training Gopher. arXiv:2112.11446 [cs], Dec. 2021. arXiv: 2112.11446. · arXiv
  30. C. Raffel, N. Shazeer, A. Roberts, K. Lee, S. Narang, M. Matena, Y. Zhou, W. Li, and P. J. Liu. Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformer. arXiv:1910.10683 [cs, stat], July 2020. arXiv: 1910.10683. · arXiv
  31. D. Raji, E. Denton, E. M. Bender, A. Hanna, and A. Paullada. AI and the Everything in the Whole Wide World Benchmark. In J. Vanschoren and S. Yeung, editors, Proceedings of the Neural Information Processing Systems Track on Datasets and Benchmarks, volume 1, 2021.
  32. P. Rajpurkar, J. Zhang, K. Lopyrev, and P. Liang. SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Compre- hension of Text. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2383-2392, Austin, Texas, Nov. 2016. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  33. M. Rauh, J. F. J. Mellor, J. Uesato, P.-S. Huang, J. Welbl, L. Weidinger, S. Dathathri, A. Glaese, G. Irv- ing, I. Gabriel, W. Isaac, and L. A. Hendricks. Characteristics of Harmful Text: Towards Rigorous Benchmarking of Language Models. In Thirty-sixth Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track, 2022.
  34. R. Rudinger, J. Naradowsky, B. Leonard, and B. V. Durme. Gender Bias in Coreference Resolution. CoRR, abs/1804.09301, 2018. arXiv: 1804.09301. · arXiv
  35. M. Sap, S. Gabriel, L. Qin, D. Jurafsky, N. A. Smith, and Y. Choi. Social Bias Frames: Reasoning about Social and Power Implications of Language. arXiv:1911.03891 [cs], Apr. 2020. arXiv: 1911.03891. · arXiv
  36. T. Schick, S. Udupa, and H. Schütze. Self-Diagnosis and Self-Debiasing: A Pro- posal for Reducing Corpus-Based Bias in NLP. Transactions of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics, 9:1408-1424, Dec. 2021. _eprint: https://direct.mit.edu/tacl/article- pdf/doi/10.1162/tacl_a_00434/1979270/tacl_a_00434.pdf. · DOI
  37. I. Solaiman and C. Dennison. Process for Adapting Language Models to Society (PALMS) with Values- Targeted Datasets. arXiv:2106.10328 [cs], Nov. 2021. arXiv: 2106.10328. · arXiv
  38. N. Stiennon, L. Ouyang, J. Wu, D. M. Ziegler, R. Lowe, C. Voss, A. Radford, D. Amodei, and P. Chris- tiano. Learning to summarize from human feedback. arXiv:2009.01325 [cs], Oct. 2020. arXiv: 2009.01325. · arXiv
  39. L. Weidinger, J. Mellor, M. Rauh, C. Griffin, J. Uesato, P.-S. Huang, M. Cheng, M. Glaese, B. Balle, A. Kasirzadeh, Z. Kenton, S. Brown, W. Hawkins, T. Stepleton, C. Biles, A. Birhane, J. Haas, L. Rimell, L. A. Hendricks, W. Isaac, S. Legassick, G. Irving, and I. Gabriel. Ethical and social risks of harm from Language Models. arXiv:2112.04359 [cs], Dec. 2021. arXiv: 2112.04359. · arXiv
  40. J. Zhao, D. Khashabi, T. Khot, A. Sabharwal, and K.-W. Chang. Ethical-Advice Taker: Do Language Models Understand Natural Language Interventions? In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 4158-4164, Online, Aug. 2021. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  41. J. Zhao, T. Wang, M. Yatskar, V. Ordonez, and K.-W. Chang. Gender Bias in Coreference Resolution: Evaluation and Debiasing Methods. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 2 (Short Papers), pages 15-20, New Orleans, Louisiana, June 2018. Association for Computational Linguistics.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ganguli, D., Askell, A., Schiefer, N., Liao, T. I., Lukošiūtė, K., Chen, A., Goldie, A., Mirhoseini, A., Olsson, C., Hernandez, D., Drain, D., Li, D., Tran-Johnson, E., Perez, E., Kernion, J., Kerr, J., Mueller, J., Landau, J., Ndousse, K., Nguyen, K., Lovitt, L., Sellitto, M., Elhage, N., Mercado, N., DasSarma, N., Rausch, O., Lasenby, R., Larson, R., Ringer, S., Kundu, S., Kadavath, S., Johnston, S., Kravec, S., Showk, S. E., Lanham, T., Telleen-Lawton, T., Henighan, T., Hume, T., Bai, Y., Hatfield-Dodds, Z., Mann, B., Amodei, D., Joseph, N., McCandlish, S., Brown, T., Olah, C., Clark, J., Bowman, S. R., & Kaplan, J.
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2302.07459
arXiv
2302.07459
OpenAlex
W4321162379
Cited by
53
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 16
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
Keywords
large language models, reinforcement learning from human feedback, instruction following, stereotyping, bias and discrimination, model size effects

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