Large Language Models Reflect Human Citation Patterns with a Heightened Citation Bias

Citation practices are crucial in shaping the structure of scientific knowledge, yet they are often influenced by contemporary norms and biases. The emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) like GPT-4 introduces a new dynamic to these practices. Interestingly, the characteristics and potential biases of references recommended by LLMs that entirely rely on their parametric knowledge, and not on search or retrieval-augmented generation, remain unexplored. Here, we analyze these characteristics in an experiment using a dataset of 166 papers from AAAI, NeurIPS, ICML, and ICLR, published after GPT-4's knowledge cut-off date, encompassing 3,066 references in total. In our experiment, GPT-4 was tasked with suggesting scholarly references for the anonymized in-text citations within these papers. Our findings reveal a remarkable similarity between human and LLM citation patterns, but with a more pronounced high citation bias in GPT-4, which persists even after controlling for publication year, title length, number of authors, and venue. Additionally, we observe a large consistency between the characteristics of GPT-4's existing and non-existent generated references, indicating the model's internalization of citation patterns. By analyzing citation graphs, we show that the references recommended by GPT-4 are embedded in the relevant citation context, suggesting an even deeper conceptual internalization of the citation networks. While LLMs can aid in citation generation, they may also amplify existing biases and introduce new ones, potentially skewing scientific knowledge dissemination. Our results underscore the need for identifying the model's biases and for developing balanced methods to interact with LLMs in general.

LUCID-GAN: Conditional Generative Models to Locate Unfairness

Most group fairness notions detect unethical biases by computing statistical parity metrics on a model's output. However, this approach suffers from several shortcomings, such as philosophical disagreement, mutual incompatibility, and lack of interpretability. These shortcomings have spurred the research on complementary bias detection methods that offer additional transparency into the sources of discrimination and are agnostic towards an a priori decision on the definition of fairness and choice of protected features. A recent proposal in this direction is LUCID (Locating Unfairness through Canonical Inverse Design), where canonical sets are generated by performing gradient descent on the input space, revealing a model's desired input given a preferred output. This information about the model's mechanisms, i.e., which feature values are essential to obtain specific outputs, allows exposing potential unethical biases in its internal logic. Here, we present LUCID-GAN, which generates canonical inputs via a conditional generative model instead of gradient-based inverse design. LUCID-GAN has several benefits, including that it applies to non-differentiable models, ensures that canonical sets consist of realistic inputs, and allows to assess proxy and intersectional discrimination. We empirically evaluate LUCID-GAN on the UCI Adult and COMPAS data sets and show that it allows for detecting unethical biases in black-box models without requiring access to the training data.

LUCID: Exposing Algorithmic Bias through Inverse Design

AI systems can create, propagate, support, and automate bias in decision-making processes. To mitigate biased decisions, we both need to understand the origin of the bias and define what it means for an algorithm to make fair decisions. Most group fairness notions assess a model's equality of outcome by computing statistical metrics on the outputs. We argue that these output metrics encounter intrinsic obstacles and present a complementary approach that aligns with the increasing focus on equality of treatment. By Locating Unfairness through Canonical Inverse Design (LUCID), we generate a canonical set that shows the desired inputs for a model given a preferred output. The canonical set reveals the model's internal logic and exposes potential unethical biases by repeatedly interrogating the decision-making process. We evaluate LUCID on the UCI Adult and COMPAS data sets and find that some biases detected by a canonical set differ from those of output metrics. The results show that by shifting the focus towards equality of treatment and looking into the algorithm's internal workings, the canonical sets are a valuable addition to the toolbox of algorithmic fairness evaluation.