cs.CLApr 30, 2026

Small edits, large models: How Wikipedia advocacy shapes LLM values

Authors: Jasmine Brazilek, Maria Navas, Alexa Gnauck

Organizations: Compassion Aligned Machine Learning (CaML) · Independent researcher · Pro-Animal Wikipedians (PAW)

Abstract

Can a small group of volunteers shape how AI systems discuss animal welfare, just by editing Wikipedia? We show that they can. Wikipedia appears in nearly every major language model training dataset and is weighted more heavily than web-crawled text. The Pro-Animal Wikipedians (PAW), a group of advocates who add sourced animal welfare content to relevant articles, have made 125 edits across 115 pages. Using gradient-based data attribution (Bergson; MAGIC), we traced how these edits influence language model behavior. TrackStar retrieval attribution on Llama 3.1 8B found that PAW-edited sections made up 68 percent of the highest-attributed documents for animal welfare queries (p < 0.0001) but only 52 percent for unrelated queries about the same companies (p = 0.53): the model links PAW content specifically to animal welfare topics, not to the entities in general. MAGIC counterfactual influence estimation on Llama-3.2-1B, run across five random training-order seeds, gave the same picture even more sharply: in every seed, the top-10 most influential documents on animal welfare queries were all PAW edits (10 of 10, 5 of 5 seeds), while on general queries the same top-10 sat at chance (4 to 6 of 10). Mean PAW influence exceeded mean control influence on animal welfare queries with p < 0.0001 in every seed, an effect 6 to 30 times larger than on general queries. Leave-subset-out validation gave Spearman rho = 1.00 for all 10 runs. When we fine-tuned separate models on PAW content versus control content, each model performed better specifically on the type of text it was trained on: the PAW-trained model cut perplexity on animal welfare text from 12.4 to 8.4, while the control-trained model cut perplexity on control text from 16.1 to 11.4. A small, coordinated Wikipedia editing campaign therefore measurably shapes how language models handle the topics those edits address.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Apr 30, 2026cs.CL

Assert, don't describe: Linguistic features that shift LLM reasoning about animal welfare

Animal-welfare advocates produce a lot of writing, and increasingly that writing trains the language models that millions of people then ask about animal welfare. Using vocabulary-matched stance-contrast probes on a held-out animal-welfare benchmark, we measure how each of ten linguistic features changes Llama-3.2-1B's preference for pro-animal-welfare reasoning when used as fine-tuning data. Eight of the ten features produce statistically significant shifts. Seven move the model toward stronger pro-animal-welfare reasoning: assertive certainty, explicit moral vocabulary, emotion words, evaluative claims, narrative structure, depicted harm severity, and immediate temporal framing. Two move it the other way: hedged language and concrete sensory description both dilute the pro-animal-welfare stance. First-person perspective has no statistically significant effect. The practical recommendation for anyone writing animal-welfare text that may end up in LLM training corpora: assert a position rather than describe a scene neutrally. The features that shift the model are the ones that make the writer's position explicit; the features that dilute it hold animal-welfare content but withhold stance.
Jasmine Brazilek, Harper Dunn
LLM Reasoning MethodsMoral ReasoningWritingSystemverilog Assertions
AskPDF
May 7, 2026cs.AI

DataDignity: Training Data Attribution for Large Language Models

Auditing language-model outputs often requires more than judging correctness: an auditor may need to identify which source document most likely supports the knowledge expressed in a response. We study this as pinpoint provenance: given a prompt, a target-model response, and a candidate corpus, rank the documents that best support the response. We introduce FakeWiki, a controlled benchmark of 3,537 fabricated Wikipedia-style articles designed to preserve ground-truth provenance while weakening lexical shortcuts. FakeWiki includes QA probes, source-preserving paraphrases, retro-generated variants, hard anti-documents that remain topically similar while removing answer-critical facts, and five query conditions: clean prompting plus four jailbreak-inspired transformations. We evaluate seven retrieval baselines, a training-free activation-steering retrieval-fusion method, SteerFuse, and a supervised contrastive provenance ranker, ScoringModel. ScoringModel maps response and document features into a shared space and is trained with InfoNCE using in-batch, retrieval-mined, and anti-document negatives. Across nine open-weight instruction-tuned LLMs and five query conditions, ScoringModel improves mean Recall@10 from 35.0 for the strongest retrieval baseline to 52.2, without inference-time fusion, and wins 41/45 model-by-condition cells. SteerFuse is usually second-best despite requiring no supervised training, showing that activation-space evidence can efficiently complement text retrieval. On jailbreak-inspired transformed queries, ScoringModel improves Recall@10 by 15.7 points on average over the best baseline. Overall, our work shows that robust training data attribution requires evaluation settings that separate true answer support from topical or lexical resemblance.
Xiaomin Li, Andrzej Banburski-Fahey, Jaron Lanier
Large Language Model EvaluationFeature AttributionTraining Data
AskPDF
Apr 18, 2026cs.CY

Do LLMs Hold Their Values? MANTA: A Multi-Turn Adversarial Benchmark for Animal Welfare Reasoning

Evaluating animal welfare reasoning in LLMs remains an open challenge despite rapid deployment in consumer and professional contexts where welfare considerations appear implicitly in everyday queries. Existing benchmarks such as AnimalHarmBench evaluate this through single-turn, explicitly framed questions, measuring whether models avoid harmful content when directly asked. This approach overlooks two failure modes: alignment degradation under sustained adversarial pressure, and moral sensitivity (whether a model spontaneously surfaces welfare stakes in everyday queries). To fill this gap, we construct MANTA, a benchmark of 1,088 five-turn conversations progressing from an implicit Turn-1 scenario through an explicit welfare prompt to three adversarial pressure rounds drawn from a five-type taxonomy: Social, Cultural, Economic, Pragmatic, and Epistemic. We score conversations on two dimensions: Animal Welfare Value Stability (AWVS, primary) and Animal Welfare Moral Sensitivity (AWMS, diagnostic). We evaluate seven frontier models: Claude Opus 4.7, GPT-5.5, DeepSeek V4, Llama 3.3 70B, Mistral Small, Grok 4.3, and Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite. Multi-turn evaluation captures behavior single-turn benchmarks miss: 4 of 7 models change rank relative to Turn 1 scores, including Gemini Flash Lite, which drops from fifth on AWMS to last on AWVS. AWMS and AWVS are positively but imperfectly correlated, suggesting moral-recognition tests capture a stable but incomplete component of model behavior under pressure. MANTA also enables a species-by-pressure interaction matrix unavailable to prior benchmarks, showing welfare robustness depends jointly on the animal and pressure applied; companion animals score above wild animals, which score above farmed animals and invertebrates. We release the dataset, scripted pressure plans, judge prompts, and analysis code.
Isabella Luong, Joyee Chen, Arturs Kanepajs +5
Adversarial EvaluationAnimal
AskPDF