Debiasing Large Language Models toward Social Factors in Online Behavior Analytics through Prompt Knowledge Tuning
Organizations: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, United States
Abstract
Attribution theory explains how individuals interpret and attribute others' behavior in a social context by employing personal (dispositional) and impersonal (situational) causality. Large Language Models (LLMs), trained on human-generated corpora, may implicitly mimic this social attribution process in social contexts. However, the extent to which LLMs utilize these causal attributions in their reasoning remains underexplored. Although using reasoning paradigms, such as Chain-of-Thought (CoT), has shown promising results in various tasks, ignoring social attribution in reasoning could lead to biased responses by LLMs in social contexts. In this study, we investigate the impact of incorporating a user's goal as knowledge to infer dispositional causality and message context to infer situational causality on LLM performance. To this end, we introduce a scalable method to mitigate such biases by enriching the instruction prompts for LLMs with two prompt aids using social-attribution knowledge, based on the context and goal of a social media message. This method improves the model performance while reducing the social-attribution bias of the LLM in the reasoning on zero-shot classification tasks for behavior analytics applications. We empirically show the benefits of our method across two tasks-intent detection and theme detection on social media in the disaster domain-when considering the variability of disaster types and multiple languages of social media. Our experiments highlight the biases of three open-source LLMs: Llama3, Mistral, and Gemma, toward social attribution, and show the effectiveness of our mitigation strategies.
Figures & tables
| Method | Social-attribution Knowledge | Knowledge Source | Instance-Specific |
|---|---|---|---|
| [ 4 ] | × | Implicit (LLM prior) | × |
| [ 8 ] | × | Human-crafted | × |
| [ 9 ] | × | External knowledge | × |
| [ 10 ] | Partial (context only) | Human-crafted | × |
| Ours | Context + User Goal | LLM-generated | ✓ |
| Task | Causality | Description | Prompt Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intent | Dispositional | Model’s capability of understanding the user’s goal | Goal-based |
| Theme | Situational | Model’s capability of understanding the task domain | Context-based |
| Classify the given tweet into one of the two given categories. - Donations and volunteering: Tweets requesting … - Affected individuals: Tweets reporting injuries … - Infrastructure and utilities: Tweets reporting … Tweet: New to #yyc and doing my part to clean up. Amazing support. #abflood #yycflood #calgarystrong <URL> | ||
|---|---|---|
| Zero-CoT | Context-based | |
| Knowledge Aid | - | The summary of the tweet: A newcomer to Calgary is helping with the flood cleanup efforts and is impressed with the community’s support. |
| Reasoning | Let’s break down the tweet: * "New to #yyc and doing my part to clean up" - This suggests that the person is participating in cleanup efforts, which implies that they are affected by the flood. * "Amazing support" - This could be referring to the support from others, which is not directly related to the flood. | The tweet mentions the individual is "doing my part to clean up", which indicates they are volunteering their time to help with the flood cleanup efforts. Additionally, the tweet expresses appreciation for the community’s support , which suggests that the individual is part of the response efforts. |
| Answer | Affected Individual ✗ | Donations and volunteering ✓ |
| Task | Lang. | Event | Labels (#Samples) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intent | Mono | Lilac (en) | Help-seeking (128), Help-offering (263) |
| Thomas (en) | Help-seeking (156), Help-offering (177) | ||
| Multi | Haiti (ht) | Requests (324), Others (196) | |
| Chile (es) | Requests or Needs (64), Others (149) | ||
| Theme | Mono | Alberta (en) | Donations and volunteering (220), Infrastructure and utilities (199), Affected individuals (78) |
| Colorado (en) | Donations and volunteering (149), Infrastructure and utilities (175), Affected individuals (205) |
| Task | Lang | Dataset | Llama3 | Mistral | Gemma | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zero-CoT | Self-Debias | Ours | Zero-CoT | Self-Debias | Ours | Zero-CoT | Self-Debias | Ours | |||
| Intent | Mono | Lilac | 80.8 1.4 | 79.6 3.2 | 88.7 0.4 | 77.6 2.7 | 74.0 3.4 | 81.8 1.2 | 74.0 1.7 | 76.7 0.4 | 83.8 0.7 |
| Thomas | 82.5 0.3 | 82.4 1.1 | 86.2 0.6 | 79.4 2.7 | 79.2 2.2 | 87.4 0.3 | 79.3 0.7 | 80.8 1.1 | 86.2 0.9 | ||
| Multi | Haiti (ht) | 67.2 0.2 | 64.1 4.1 | 69.8 0.5 | 67.5 1.7 | 61.5 0.6 | 68.5 0.7 | 51.7 1.4 | 54.0 1.2 | 65.4 0.8 | |
| Chile (es) | 70.0 0.4 | 72.1 1.5 | 70.9 0.8 | 71.4 0.6 | 72.4 1.1 | 71.0 0.6 | 62.6 0.5 | 62.6 0.5 | 64.4 0.8 | ||
| Theme | Mono | Alberta | 74.0 3.0 | 75.7 4.9 | 79.3 3.2 | 81.0 2.1 | 79.1 3.0 | 82.8 2.0 | 75.5 2.8 | 76.9 1.7 | 77.0 2.6 |
| Task | Dataset | Llama3 | Gemma | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Self | Cross | Self | Cross | ||
| Intent | Lilac | 88.7 0.4 | 84.5 0.8 | 83.8 0.7 | 86.0 0.7 |
| Thomas | 86.2 0.6 | 85.0 0.7 | 86.2 0.9 | 85.6 0.2 | |
| Theme | Alberta | 79.3 3.2 | 80.3 1.8 | 77.0 2.6 | 76.8 2.1 |
| Colorado | 83.2 1.5 | 83.7 1.5 | 84.2 1.1 | 83.8 1.3 | |
| Task | Model | Helpfulness (%) | Faithfulness (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intent | Llama3 | 0.88 | 0.98 |
| Mistral | 0.88 | 0.98 | |
| Gemma | 0.85 | 0.98 | |
| Theme | Llama3 | 0.85 | 0.98 |
| Mistral | 0.95 | 0.98 | |
| Gemma | 0.88 | 0.98 |