Global partisan hostility and polarization has increased, and this polarization is heightened around presidential elections. Models capable of generating accurate summaries of diverse perspectives can help reduce such polarization by exposing users to alternative perspectives. In this work, we introduce a novel dataset and task for independently summarizing each political perspective in a set of passages from opinionated news articles. For this task, we propose a framework for evaluating different dimensions of perspective summary performance. We benchmark 11 summarization models and LLMs of varying sizes and architectures through both automatic and human evaluation. While recent models like GPT-4o perform well on this task, we find that all models struggle to generate summaries that are faithful to the intended perspective. Our analysis of summaries focuses on how extraction behavior is impacted by features of the input documents.

Preference alignment via reward models helps build safe, helpful, and reliable large language models (LLMs). However, subjectivity in preference judgments and the lack of representative sampling in preference data collection can introduce new biases, hindering reward models’ fairness and equity. In this work, we introduce a framework for evaluating dialect biases in reward models and conduct a case study on biases against African American Language (AAL) through several experiments comparing reward model preferences and behavior on paired White Mainstream English (WME) and both machine-translated and human-written AAL corpora. We show that reward models are less aligned with human preferences when processing AAL texts vs. WME ones (-4% accuracy on average), frequently disprefer AAL-aligned texts vs. WME-aligned ones, and steer conversations toward WME, even when prompted with AAL texts. Our findings provide a targeted analysis of anti-AAL biases at a relatively understudied stage in LLM development, highlighting representational harms and ethical questions about the desired behavior of LLMs concerning AAL.

In the field of emotion analysis, much NLP research focuses on identifying a limited number of discrete emotion categories, often applied across languages. These basic sets, however, are rarely designed with textual data in mind, and culture, language, and dialect can influence how particular emotions are interpreted. In this work, we broaden our scope to a practically unbounded set of affective states, which includes any terms that humans use to describe their experiences of feeling. We collect and publish MASIVE, a dataset of Reddit posts in English and Spanish containing over 1,000 unique affective states each. We then define the new problem of affective state identification for language generation models framed as a masked span prediction task. On this task, we find that smaller finetuned multilingual models outperform much larger LLMs, even on region-specific Spanish affective states. Additionally, we show that pretraining on MASIVE improves model performance on existing emotion benchmarks. Finally, through machine translation experiments, we find that native speaker-written data is vital to good performance on this task.

While biases disadvantaging African American Language (AAL) have been uncovered in models for tasks such as speech recognition and toxicity detection, there has been little investigation of these biases for language generation models like ChatGPT. We evaluate how well LLMs understand AAL in comparison to White Mainstream English (WME), the encouraged “standard” form of English taught in American classrooms. We measure large language model performance on two tasks: a counterpart generation task, where a model generates AAL given WME and vice versa, and a masked span prediction (MSP) task, where models predict a phrase hidden from their input. Using a novel dataset of AAL texts from a variety of regions and contexts, we present evidence of dialectal bias for six pre-trained LLMs through performance gaps on these tasks.