Fine-grained personas have recently been used for generating ‘diverse’ synthetic data for pre-training and supervised fine-tuning of Large Language Models (LLMs). In this work, we measure the diversity of persona-driven synthetically generated prompts and responses with a suite of lexical diversity and redundancy metrics. First, we find that synthetic prompts/instructions are significantly less diverse than human-written ones. Next, we sample responses from LLMs of different sizes with fine-grained and coarse persona descriptions to investigate how much fine-grained detail in persona descriptions contribute to generated text diversity. Our results indicate that persona prompting produces higher lexical diversity than prompting without personas, particularly in larger models. In contrast, adding fine-grained persona details yields minimal gains in diversity compared to simply specifying a length cutoff in the prompt.

The variations between in-group and out-group speech (intergroup bias) are subtle and could underlie many social phenomena like stereotype perpetuation and implicit bias. In this paper, we model intergroup bias as a tagging task on English sports comments from forums dedicated to fandom for NFL teams. We curate a dataset of over 6 million game-time comments from opposing perspectives (the teams in the game), each comment grounded in a non-linguistic description of the events that precipitated these comments (live win probabilities for each team). Expert and crowd annotations justify modeling the bias through tagging of implicit and explicit referring expressions and reveal the rich, contextual understanding of language and the world required for this task. For large-scale analysis of intergroup variation, we use LLMs for automated tagging, and discover that LLMs occasionally perform better when prompted with linguistic descriptions of the win probability at the time of the comment, rather than numerical probability. Further, large-scale tagging of comments using LLMs uncovers linear variations in the form of referent across win probabilities that distinguish in-group and out-group utterances.

Developing methods to adversarially challenge NLP systems is a promising avenue for improving both model performance and interpretability. Here, we describe the approach of the team “longhorns” on Task 1 of the First Workshop on Dynamic Adversarial Data Collection (DADC), which asked teams to manually fool a model on an Extractive Question Answering task. Our team finished first (pending validation), with a model error rate of 62%. We advocate for a systematic, linguistically informed approach to formulating adversarial questions, and we describe the results of our pilot experiments, as well as our official submission.