CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 4Topic ModelingEthics and Social Impacts of AIExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Bias-Augmented Consistency Training Reduces Biased Reasoning in Chain-of-Thought

Open access
Chua, James, Rees, Edward, Batra, Hunar, Bowman, Samuel R., Michael, Julian, Perez, Ethan, Turpin, Miles·2024·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2403.05518arXiv 2403.05518
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Chain-of-thought prompting (CoT) has the potential to improve the explainability of language model reasoning. But CoT can also systematically misrepresent the factors influencing models' behavior -- for example, rationalizing answers in line with a user's opinion. We first create a new dataset of 9 different biases that affect GPT-3.5-Turbo and Llama-8b models. These consist of spurious-few-shot patterns, post hoc rationalization, and sycophantic settings. Models switch to the answer implied by the bias, without mentioning the effect of the bias in the CoT. To mitigate this biased reasoning problem, we introduce bias-augmented consistency training (BCT), an unsupervised fine-tuning scheme that trains models to give consistent reasoning across prompts with and without biasing features. We construct a suite testing nine forms of biased reasoning on seven question-answering tasks, and find that applying BCT to GPT-3.5-Turbo with one bias reduces the rate of biased reasoning by 86\% on held-out tasks. Moreover, this model generalizes to other forms of bias, reducing biased reasoning on held-out biases by an average of 37\%. As BCT generalizes to held-out biases and does not require gold labels, this method may hold promise for reducing biased reasoning from as-of-yet unknown biases and on tasks where ground truth reasoning is unavailable.

Overview

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.2403.05518

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 56

  1. Afra Feyza Akyürek, Ekin Akyürek, Leshem Choshen, Derry Wijaya, and Jacob Andreas. De- ductive Closure Training of Language Models for Coherence, Accuracy, and Updatability, January 2024. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.08574. arXiv:2401.08574 [cs]. · arXiv
  2. Pepa Atanasova, Oana-Maria Camburu, Christina Lioma, Thomas Lukasiewicz, Jakob Grue Simonsen, and Isabelle Augenstein. Faithfulness tests for natural language explanations. In Anna Rogers, Jordan Boyd-Graber, and Naoaki Okazaki (eds.), Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pp. 283-294, Toronto, Canada, July 2023. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2023.acl-short.25. URL https://aclanthology.org/2023.acl-short.25. 10 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Samuel R. Bowman, Jeeyoon Hyun, Ethan Perez, Edwin Chen, Craig Pettit, Scott Heiner, Kamil ė Lukoši ūt ė, Amanda Askell, Andy Jones, Anna Chen, Anna Goldie, et al. Measur- ing Progress on Scalable Oversight for Large Language Models, November 2022. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2211.03540. arXiv:2211.03540 [cs]. · arXiv
  4. Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Pra- fulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. Language Models are Few-Shot Learners. In Advances in Neu- ral Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pp. 1877-1901.
  5. Curran Associates, Inc., 2020. URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2020/hash/ 1457c0d6bfcb4967418bfb8ac142f64a-Abstract.html. 6, 18
  6. Yanda Chen, Ruiqi Zhong, Narutatsu Ri, Chen Zhao, He He, Jacob Steinhardt, Zhou Yu, and Kathleen McKeown. Do Models Explain Themselves? Counterfactual Simulatability of Natural Language Explanations, July 2023. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2307.08678. arXiv:2307.08678 [cs]. 3, 10 · arXiv
  7. Yanda Chen, Chandan Singh, Xiaodong Liu, Simiao Zuo, Bin Yu, He He, and Jianfeng Gao. Towards Consistent Natural-Language Explanations via Explanation-Consistency Finetuning, January 2024. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2401.13986. arXiv:2401.13986 [cs]. · arXiv
  8. François Chollet. On the Measure of Intelligence. CoRR, abs/1911.01547, 2019. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1911.01547. · arXiv
  9. Paul F Christiano, Jan Leike, Tom Brown, Miljan Martic, Shane Legg, and Dario Amodei. Deep Reinforcement Learning from Human Preferences. In Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30.
  10. Curran Associates, Inc., 2017. URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2017/hash/ d5e2c0adad503c91f91df240d0cd4e49-Abstract.html.
  11. Antonia Creswell and Murray Shanahan. Faithful Reasoning Using Large Language Models, August 2022. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2208.14271. arXiv:2208.14271 [cs]. · arXiv
  12. Finale Doshi-Velez and Been Kim. Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learning, March 2017. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1702.08608. arXiv:1702.08608 [cs, stat]. · arXiv
  13. Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, et al. The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783, 2024. · arXiv
  14. Yanai Elazar, Nora Kassner, Shauli Ravfogel, Abhilasha Ravichander, Eduard Hovy, Hinrich Schütze, and Yoav Goldberg. Measuring and Improving Consistency in Pretrained Language Models. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 9:1012-1031, December 2021. ISSN 2307-387X. doi: 10.1162/tacl_a_00410. URL https://doi.org/10. 1162/tacl_a_00410. · DOI · Paper page
  15. Lukas Fluri, Daniel Paleka, and Florian Tramèr. Evaluating Superhuman Models with Consistency Checks, October 2023. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2306.09983. arXiv:2306.09983 [cs, stat]. · arXiv
  16. Deep Ganguli, Amanda Askell, Nicholas Schiefer, Thomas I. Liao, Kamil ė Lukoši ūt ė, Anna Chen, Anna Goldie, Azalia Mirhoseini, Catherine Olsson, Danny Hernandez, et al. The Capacity for Moral Self-Correction in Large Language Models, February 2023. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2302.07459. arXiv:2302.07459 [cs]. · arXiv
  17. Peter Hase and Mohit Bansal. Evaluating Explainable AI: Which Algorithmic Explanations Help Users Predict Model Behavior? In Dan Jurafsky, Joyce Chai, Natalie Schluter, and Joel Tetreault (eds.), Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 5540-5552, Online, July 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.491. URL https://aclanthology.org/2020.acl-main. 491. · DOI · Paper page
  18. Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou, Mantas Mazeika, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id= d7KBjmI3GmQ.
  19. Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09685, 2021. · arXiv
  20. Alon Jacovi and Yoav Goldberg. Towards Faithfully Interpretable NLP Systems: How Should We Define and Evaluate Faithfulness? In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 4198-4205, Online, July 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.386. URL https:// aclanthology.org/2020.acl-main.386. 1, 3 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Nora Kassner, Oyvind Tafjord, Ashish Sabharwal, Kyle Richardson, Hinrich Schuetze, and Peter Clark. Language Models with Rationality. In Houda Bouamor, Juan Pino, and Kalika Bali (eds.), Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 14190-14201, Singapore, December 2023. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.877. URL https://aclanthology.org/ 2023.emnlp-main.877. · DOI
  22. Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners. In Alice H. Oh, Alekh Agarwal, Danielle Belgrave, and Kyunghyun Cho (eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2022. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=e2TBb5y0yFf. 4
  23. Tamera Lanham, Anna Chen, Ansh Radhakrishnan, Benoit Steiner, Carson Denison, Danny Hernandez, Dustin Li, Esin Durmus, Evan Hubinger, Jackson Kernion, et al. Measuring Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning, July 2023. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/ 2307.13702. arXiv:2307.13702 [cs]. · arXiv
  24. Jiachun Li, Pengfei Cao, Yubo Chen, Kang Liu, and Jun Zhao. Towards faithful chain-of- thought: Large language models are bridging reasoners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.18915, 2024a. 10 · arXiv
  25. Jingling Li, Zeyu Tang, Xiaoyu Liu, Peter Spirtes, Kun Zhang, Liu Leqi, and Yang Liu. Steering llms towards unbiased responses: A causality-guided debiasing framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.08743, 2024b. 10 · arXiv
  26. Hunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yuri Burda, Harrison Edwards, Bowen Baker, Teddy Lee, Jan Leike, John Schulman, Ilya Sutskever, and Karl Cobbe. Let's Verify Step by Step. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. URL https: //openreview.net/forum?id=v8L0pN6EOi. 1, 3, 8, 9
  27. Stephanie Lin, Jacob Hilton, and Owain Evans. TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoods. In Smaranda Muresan, Preslav Nakov, and Aline Villavicencio (eds.), Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pp. 3214-3252, Dublin, Ireland, May 2022. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.229. URL https://aclanthology.org/2022. acl-long.229. · DOI · Paper page
  28. Jian Liu, Leyang Cui, Hanmeng Liu, Dandan Huang, Yile Wang, and Yue Zhang. LogiQA: A Challenge Dataset for Machine Reading Comprehension with Logical Reasoning. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 3622-3628, Yokohama, Japan, July 2020. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization. ISBN 978-0-9992411-6-5. doi: 10.24963/ijcai.2020/501. URL https://www.ijcai.org/proceedings/2020/501. · DOI
  29. Qing Lyu, Shreya Havaldar, Adam Stein, Li Zhang, Delip Rao, Eric Wong, Marianna Apidi- anaki, and Chris Callison-Burch. Faithful Chain-of-Thought Reasoning. In Jong C. Park, Yuki Arase, Baotian Hu, Wei Lu, Derry Wijaya, Ayu Purwarianti, and Adila Alfa Krisnadhi (eds.), Proceedings of the 13th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing and the 3rd Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pp. 305-329, Nusa Dua, Bali, November 2023. Association for Computational Linguistics. URL https://aclanthology.org/2023.ijcnlp-main.20. 10
  30. Ian R. McKenzie, Alexander Lyzhov, Michael Martin Pieler, Alicia Parrish, Aaron Mueller, Ameya Prabhu, Euan McLean, Xudong Shen, Joe Cavanagh, Andrew George Gritsevskiy, et al. Inverse scaling: When bigger isn't better. Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2023. ISSN 2835-8856. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=DwgRm72GQF. Featured Certification. 6, 9, 18, 23, 26
  31. Todor Mihaylov, Peter Clark, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal. Can a Suit of Armor Conduct Electricity? A New Dataset for Open Book Question Answering. In Ellen Riloff, David Chiang, Julia Hockenmaier, and Jun'ichi Tsujii (eds.), Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 2381-2391, Brussels, Belgium, October 2018. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/ D18-1260. URL https://aclanthology.org/D18-1260. · DOI
  32. Edmund Mills, Shiye Su, Stuart Russell, and Scott Emmons. ALMANACS: A Simulatability Benchmark for Language Model Explainability, December 2023. URL http://arxiv.org/ abs/2312.12747. arXiv:2312.12747 [cs, stat]. · arXiv
  33. Maxwell Nye, Anders Johan Andreassen, Guy Gur-Ari, Henryk Michalewski, Jacob Austin, David Bieber, David Dohan, Aitor Lewkowycz, Maarten Bosma, David Luan, Charles Sut- ton, and Augustus Odena. Show your work: Scratchpads for intermediate computation with language models, 2022. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=iedYJm92o0a.
  34. Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Gray, et al. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. In Alice H. Oh, Alekh Agarwal, Danielle Belgrave, and Kyunghyun Cho (eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2022. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=TG8KACxEON. 4
  35. Ethan Perez, Patrick Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Kyunghyun Cho, and Douwe Kiela. Unsupervised Question Decomposition for Question Answering. In Bonnie Webber, Trevor Cohn, Yulan He, and Yang Liu (eds.), Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pp. 8864-8880, Online, November 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.713. URL https: //aclanthology.org/2020.emnlp-main.713. · DOI · Paper page
  36. Ethan Perez, Sam Ringer, Kamil ė Lukoši ūt ė, Karina Nguyen, Edwin Chen, Scott Heiner, Craig Pettit, Catherine Olsson, Sandipan Kundu, Saurav Kadavath, et al. Discovering Language Model Behaviors with Model-Written Evaluations, December 2022. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2212.09251. arXiv:2212.09251 [cs]. 1, 5, 17, 23 · arXiv
  37. Ansh Radhakrishnan, Karina Nguyen, Anna Chen, Carol Chen, Carson Denison, Danny Hernandez, Esin Durmus, Evan Hubinger, Jackson Kernion, Kamil ė Lukoši ūt ė, et al. Question Decomposition Improves the Faithfulness of Model-Generated Reasoning, July 2023. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2307.11768. arXiv:2307.11768 [cs]. · arXiv
  38. Nina Rimsky, Nick Gabrieli, Julian Schulz, Meg Tong, Evan Hubinger, and Alexander Matt Turner. Steering Llama 2 via Contrastive Activation Addition, December 2023. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2312.06681. arXiv:2312.06681 [cs] version: 2. 10 · arXiv
  39. Melanie Sclar, Yejin Choi, Yulia Tsvetkov, and Alane Suhr. Quantifying Language Models' Sensitivity to Spurious Features in Prompt Design or: How I learned to start worrying about prompt formatting. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=RIu5lyNXjT. 9
  40. Mrinank Sharma, Meg Tong, Tomasz Korbak, David Duvenaud, Amanda Askell, Samuel R. Bowman, Newton Cheng, Esin Durmus, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, et al. Towards Understand- ing Sycophancy in Language Models, October 2023. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2310. 13548. arXiv:2310.13548 [cs, stat]. 5, 17 · arXiv
  41. Freda Shi, Xinyun Chen, Kanishka Misra, Nathan Scales, David Dohan, Ed Chi, Nathanael Schärli, and Denny Zhou. Large Language Models Can Be Easily Distracted by Irrelevant Context, February 2023. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2302.00093. arXiv:2302.00093 [cs]. 6, 18 · arXiv
  42. Mirac Suzgun, Nathan Scales, Nathanael Schärli, Sebastian Gehrmann, Yi Tay, Hyung Won Chung, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, Denny Zhou, and Jason Wei. Chal- lenging BIG-Bench Tasks and Whether Chain-of-Thought Can Solve Them. In Anna Rogers, Jordan Boyd-Graber, and Naoaki Okazaki (eds.), Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pp. 13003-13051, Toronto, Canada, July 2023. As- sociation for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.824. URL https://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.824. · DOI · Paper page
  43. Miles Turpin, Julian Michael, Ethan Perez, and Samuel R. Bowman. Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=bzs4uPLXvi. 1, 3, 5, 8, 17, 23
  44. Jonathan Uesato, Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Po-Sen Huang, Alhussein Fawzi, Robert Stan- forth, and Pushmeet Kohli. Are Labels Required for Improving Adversarial Ro- bustness? In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 32. Cur- ran Associates, Inc., 2019. URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2019/hash/ bea6cfd50b4f5e3c735a972cf0eb8450-Abstract.html.
  45. Jonathan Uesato, Nate Kushman, Ramana Kumar, Francis Song, Noah Siegel, Lisa Wang, Antonia Creswell, Geoffrey Irving, and Irina Higgins. Solving math word problems with process-and outcome-based feedback, November 2022. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/ 2211.14275. arXiv:2211.14275 [cs]. · arXiv
  46. Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, brian ichter, Fei Xia, Ed H. Chi, Quoc V Le, and Denny Zhou. Chain of Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models. In Alice H. Oh, Alekh Agarwal, Danielle Belgrave, and Kyunghyun Cho (eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2022. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=_VjQlMeSB_J.
  47. Jerry Wei, Da Huang, Yifeng Lu, Denny Zhou, and Quoc V. Le. Simple synthetic data reduces sycophancy in large language models, February 2024. URL http://arxiv.org/ abs/2308.03958. arXiv:2308.03958 [cs]. 10, 23 · arXiv
  48. Jason Weston and Sainbayar Sukhbaatar. System 2 Attention (is something you might need too), November 2023. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.11829. arXiv:2311.11829 [cs]. · arXiv
  49. Junda Wu, Tong Yu, Xiang Chen, Haoliang Wang, Ryan Rossi, Sungchul Kim, Anup Rao, and Julian McAuley. DeCoT: Debiasing chain-of-thought for knowledge-intensive tasks in large language models via causal intervention. In Lun-Wei Ku, Andre Martins, and Vivek Srikumar (eds.), Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pp. 14073-14087, Bangkok, Thailand, August 2024. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.758. URL https://aclanthology.org/2024.acl-long.758. · DOI
  50. Qizhe Xie, Zihang Dai, Eduard Hovy, Thang Luong, and Quoc Le. Unsupervised Data Augmentation for Consistency Training. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pp. 6256-6268.
  51. Curran Associates, Inc., 2020. URL https://papers. neurips.cc/paper/2020/hash/44feb0096faa8326192570788b38c1d1-Abstract.html.
  52. Rowan Zellers, Ari Holtzman, Yonatan Bisk, Ali Farhadi, and Yejin Choi. HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence? In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2019.
  53. Congzhi Zhang, Linhai Zhang, Deyu Zhou, and Guoqiang Xu. Causal prompting: Debi- asing large language model prompting based on front-door adjustment. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.02738, 2024. · arXiv
  54. Lianmin Zheng, Wei-Lin Chiang, Ying Sheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Zhanghao Wu, Yonghao Zhuang, Zi Lin, Zhuohan Li, Dacheng Li, Eric Xing, Hao Zhang, Joseph E. Gonzalez, and Ion Stoica. Judging LLM-as-a-judge with MT-bench and chatbot arena. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track, 2023. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=uccHPGDlao. 6, 8, 18
  55. Chunting Zhou, Junxian He, Xuezhe Ma, Taylor Berg-Kirkpatrick, and Graham Neubig. Prompt Consistency for Zero-Shot Task Generalization. In Yoav Goldberg, Zornitsa Kozareva, and Yue Zhang (eds.), Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, pp. 2613-2626, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, December 2022. Associ- ation for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2022.findings-emnlp.192. URL https://aclanthology.org/2022.findings-emnlp.192. · DOI
  56. Andy Zou, Long Phan, Sarah Chen, James Campbell, Phillip Guo, Richard Ren, Alexander Pan, Xuwang Yin, Mantas Mazeika, Ann-Kathrin Dombrowski, et al. Representation Engineering: A Top-Down Approach to AI Transparency, October 2023. URL http: //arxiv.org/abs/2310.01405. arXiv:2310.01405 [cs]. 10 · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Chua, J., Rees, E., Batra, H., Bowman, S. R., Michael, J., Perez, E., & Turpin, M.
Affiliations
  • New York University (US)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
ORCID
Batra, Hunar
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2403.05518
arXiv
2403.05518
OpenAlex
W4392678667
Cited by
0
References
1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Keywords
chain-of-thought prompting, unsupervised fine-tuning, post hoc rationalization, language model reasoning, bias mitigation, explainability, GPT-3.5-turbo

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