The growing importance of textual and relational systems has driven interest in enhancing large language models (LLMs) for graph-structured data, particularly Text-Attributed Graphs (TAGs), where samples are represented by textual descriptions interconnected by edges. While research has largely focused on developing specialized graph LLMs through task-specific instruction tuning, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating LLMs solely through prompt design remains surprisingly absent. Without such a carefully crafted evaluation benchmark, most if not all, tailored graph LLMs are compared against general LLMs using simplistic queries (e.g., zero-shot reasoning with LLaMA), which can potentially camouflage many advantages as well as unexpected predicaments of them. To achieve more general evaluations and unveil the true potential of LLMs for graph tasks, we introduce Graph In-context Learning (GraphICL) Benchmark, a comprehensive benchmark comprising novel prompt templates designed to capture graph structure and handle limited label knowledge. Our systematic evaluation shows that general-purpose LLMs equipped with our GraphICL outperform state-of-the-art specialized graph LLMs and graph neural network models in resource-constrained settings and out-of-domain tasks. These findings highlight the significant potential of prompt engineering to enhance LLM performance on graph learning tasks without training and offer a strong baseline for advancing research in graph LLMs.

Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in various natural language processing tasks but struggle with hallucination issues. Existing solutions have considered utilizing LLMs’ inherent reasoning abilities to alleviate hallucination, such as self-correction and diverse sampling methods. However, these methods often overtrust LLMs’ initial answers due to inherent biases. The key to alleviating this issue lies in overriding LLMs’ inherent biases for answer inspection. To this end, we propose a CounterFactual Multi-Agent Debate (CFMAD) framework. CFMAD presets the stances of LLMs to override their inherent biases by compelling LLMs to generate justifications for a predetermined answer’s correctness. The LLMs with different predetermined stances are engaged with a skeptical critic for counterfactual debate on the rationality of generated justifications. Finally, the debate process is evaluated by a third-party judge to determine the final answer. Extensive experiments on four datasets of three tasks demonstrate the superiority of CFMAD over existing methods.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has recently gained significant attention for its enhanced ability to integrate external knowledge sources into open-domain question answering (QA) tasks. However, it remains unclear how these models address fairness concerns, particularly with respect to sensitive attributes such as gender, geographic location, and other demographic factors. First, as language models evolve to prioritize utility, like improving exact match accuracy, fairness considerations may have been largely overlooked. Second, the complex, multi-component architecture of RAG methods poses challenges in identifying and mitigating biases, as each component is optimized for distinct objectives. In this paper, we aim to empirically evaluate fairness in several RAG methods. We propose a fairness evaluation framework tailored to RAG, using scenario-based questions and analyzing disparities across demographic attributes. Our experimental results indicate that, despite recent advances in utility-driven optimization, fairness issues persist in both the retrieval and generation stages. These findings underscore the need for targeted interventions to address fairness concerns throughout the RAG pipeline. The dataset and code used in this study are publicly available at this GitHub Repository.

The integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) in information retrieval has raised a critical reevaluation of fairness in the text-ranking models. LLMs, such as GPT models and Llama2, have shown effectiveness in natural language understanding tasks, and prior works such as RankGPT have demonstrated that the LLMs have better performance than the traditional ranking models in the ranking task. However, their fairness remains largely unexplored. This paper presents an empirical study evaluating these LLMs using the TREC Fair Ranking dataset, focusing on the representation of binary protected attributes such as gender and geographic location, which are historically underrepresented in search outcomes. Our analysis delves into how these LLMs handle queries and documents related to these attributes, aiming to uncover biases in their ranking algorithms. We assess fairness from both user and content perspectives, contributing an empirical benchmark for evaluating LLMs as the fair ranker.