In the recent past, a popular way of evaluating natural language understanding (NLU), was to consider a model’s ability to perform natural language inference (NLI) tasks. In this paper, we investigate if NLI tasks, that are rarely used for LLM evaluation, can still be informative for evaluating LLMs. Focusing on five different NLI benchmarks across six models of different scales, we investigate if they are able to discriminate models of different size and quality and how their accuracies develop during training. Furthermore, we investigate the extent to which the softmax distributions of models align with human distributions in cases where statements are ambiguous or vague. Overall, our results paint a positive picture for the NLI tasks: we find that they are able to discriminate well between models at various stages of training, yet are not (all) saturated. Furthermore, we find that while the similarity of model distributions with human label distributions increases with scale, it is still much higher than the similarity between two populations of humans, making it a potentially interesting statistic to consider.

As generative large language models (LLMs) grow more performant and prevalent, we must develop comprehensive enough tools to measure and improve their fairness. Different prompt-based datasets can be used to measure social bias across multiple text domains and demographic axes, meaning that testing LLMs on more datasets can potentially help us characterize their biases more fully, and better ensure equal and equitable treatment of marginalized demographic groups. In this work, our focus is two-fold: (1) Benchmarking: a comparison of 6 different prompt-based bias and toxicity metrics across 12 demographic axes and 5 families of generative LLMs. Out of those 6 metrics, AdvPromptSet and HolisticBiasR are novel datasets proposed in the paper. The comparison of those benchmarks gives us insights about the bias and toxicity of the compared models. Therefore, we explore the frequency of demographic terms in common LLM pre-training corpora and how this may relate to model biases. (2) Mitigation: we conduct a comprehensive study of how well 3 bias/toxicity mitigation techniques perform across our suite of measurements. ROBBIE aims to provide insights for practitioners while deploying a model, emphasizing the need to not only measure potential harms, but also understand how they arise by characterizing the data, mitigate harms once found, and balance any trade-offs. We open-source our analysis code in hopes of encouraging broader measurements of bias in future LLMs.