With a combination of quantitative experiments, human judgments, and qualitative analyses, we evaluate the quantity and quality of African American Language (AAL) representation in 12 predominantly English, open-source pretraining corpora. We specifically focus on the sources, variation, and naturalness of included AAL texts representing the AAL speaking community. We find that AAL is underrepresented in all evaluated pretraining corpora compared to US demographics, constituting as few as 0.007% and at most 0.18% of documents. We also find that more than 25% of AAL texts in C4 may be perceived as inappropriate for LLMs to generate and to reinforce harmful stereotypes. Finally, we find that most automated filters are more likely to conserve White Mainstream English (WME) texts over AAL in pretraining corpora.

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.

We introduce and study artificial impressions–patterns in LLMs’ internal representations of prompts that resemble human impressions and stereotypes based on language. We fit linear probes on generated prompts to predict impressions according to the two-dimensional Stereotype Content Model (SCM). Using these probes, we study the relationship between impressions and downstream model behavior as well as prompt features that may inform such impressions. We find that LLMs inconsistently report impressions when prompted, but also that impressions are more consistently linearly decodable from their hidden representations. Additionally, we show that artificial impressions of prompts are predictive of the quality and use of hedging in model responses. We also investigate how particular content, stylistic, and dialectal features in prompts impact LLM impressions.

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.

Generating unbiased summaries in real-world settings such as political perspective summarization remains a crucial application of Large Language Models (LLMs). Yet, existing evaluation frameworks rely on traditional metrics for measuring key attributes such as coverage and faithfulness without verifying their applicability, and efforts to develop improved summarizers are still nascent. We address these gaps by (1) identifying reliable metrics for measuring perspective summary quality, and (2) investigating the efficacy of LLM-based methods beyond zero-shot inference. Namely, we build a test set for benchmarking metric reliability using human annotations and show that traditional metrics underperform compared to language model–based metrics, which prove to be strong evaluators. Using these metrics, we show that reranking-based methods yield strong results, and preference tuning with synthetically generated and reranking-labeled data further boosts performance. Our findings aim to contribute to the reliable evaluation and development of perspective summarization methods.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved impressive performance in text summarization and are increasingly deployed in real-world applications. However, these systems often inherit associative and framing biases from pre-training data, leading to inappropriate or unfair outputs in downstream tasks. In this work, we present AdvSumm (Adversarial Summarization), a domain-agnostic training framework designed to mitigate bias in text summarization through improved generalization. Inspired by adversarial robustness, AdvSumm introduces a novel Perturber component that applies gradient-guided perturbations at the embedding level of Sequence-to-Sequence models, enhancing the model’s robustness to input variations. We empirically demonstrate that AdvSumm effectively reduces different types of bias in summarization—specifically, name-nationality bias and political framing bias—without compromising summarization quality. Compared to standard transformers and data augmentation techniques like back-translation, AdvSumm achieves stronger bias mitigation performance across benchmark datasets.

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.