Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
94 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Premium
55 tokens/sec
GPT-5 Medium
18 tokens/sec
GPT-5 High Premium
24 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
103 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Premium
93 tokens/sec
GPT OSS 120B via Groq Premium
462 tokens/sec
Kimi K2 via Groq Premium
254 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Writing Style Matters: An Examination of Bias and Fairness in Information Retrieval Systems (2411.13173v2)

Published 20 Nov 2024 in cs.IR and cs.AI

Abstract: The rapid advancement of LLM technologies has opened new opportunities, but also introduced new challenges related to bias and fairness. This paper explores the uncharted territory of potential biases in state-of-the-art universal text embedding models towards specific document and query writing styles within Information Retrieval (IR) systems. Our investigation reveals that different embedding models exhibit different preferences of document writing style, while more informal and emotive styles are less favored by most embedding models. In terms of query writing styles, many embedding models tend to match the style of the query with the style of the retrieved documents, but some show a consistent preference for specific styles. Text embedding models fine-tuned on synthetic data generated by LLMs display a consistent preference for certain style of generated data. These biases in text embedding based IR systems can inadvertently silence or marginalize certain communication styles, thereby posing a significant threat to fairness in information retrieval. Finally, we also compare the answer styles of Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) systems based on different LLMs and find out that most text embedding models are biased towards LLM's answer styles when used as evaluation metrics for answer correctness. This study sheds light on the critical issue of writing style based bias in IR systems, offering valuable insights for the development of more fair and robust models.

Summary

  • The paper demonstrates that text embedding models favor formal, factual writing, potentially marginalising informal or emotive styles.
  • The authors employ diverse embedding models and evaluate nine distinct writing styles to isolate bias in document rankings.
  • Findings highlight the need for transparency and fine-tuning in embedding models to enhance fairness in information retrieval systems.

Analyzing Biases in Text Embedding Models: Writing Style Considerations in Information Retrieval Systems

The paper "Writing Style Matters: An Examination of Bias and Fairness in Information Retrieval Systems" addresses an overlooked aspect of text embedding models in Information Retrieval (IR) systems—their potential biases towards different writing styles of documents and queries. This investigation is significant due to the pivotal role that writing style bias can play in the effectiveness and fairness of IR systems, especially given the rapid adoption of LLMs (LM) and their application in a myriad of contexts.

Summary and Findings

The paper provides a detailed analysis of writing style biases in state-of-the-art universal text embedding models. It highlights that these models exhibit differing preferences towards document writing styles, often discriminating against informal or emotive styles in favor of clear, factual styles similar to those found in Wikipedia articles. The authors observed that texts written in more informal or emotionally expressive manners, including those characterized by emojis or slang, often receive less favorable rankings by text embedding models. Models trained with LLM-generated synthetic data showed distinct style preferences as well.

In terms of query writing styles, the paper discovered that embedding models generally attempt to match document styles to query styles. However, there exist models that consistently prefer certain document styles regardless of the writing style of queries.

The implications are critical. Such biases can potentially silence or marginalize certain communication styles, posing significant threats to fairness in IR systems. The biases could inadvertently perpetuate inequality across various demographic groups that favor different communication styles, stressing the importance of developing embedding models that account for diverse writing styles in their design.

Methodology

The authors utilize a diverse array of top-performing universal text embedding models, including both BERT-based and LLM-based embeddings, assessing their preferences across nine distinct writing styles. Their methodology involves evaluating document rankings in response to both human-written and LLM-generated styles, effectively isolating the effects of writing style preferences on the overall retrieval results.

Furthermore, they scrutinize the impact of using embeddings as evaluation metrics when assessing answer correctness. Their findings suggest that different embeddings demonstrate varied biases towards certain LLM-generated answer styles, which may influence the perceived correctness of answers in RAG systems.

Implications and Future Directions

This paper underscores the need for enhanced fairness and robustness in IR systems to combat potential style biases, proposing transparency in model bias as a remedy. Awareness and transparency are vital, allowing users to select models aligning with their communication needs.

Future developments in AI should focus on fine-tuning strategies that eschew style biases, exploring architectural modifications in LLMs and embedding models to diminish disparate impacts across diverse writing styles. Additionally, more rigorous methods to quantify fairness and bias in embedding models would benefit the field, guiding the development of equitable IR systems that accommodate a wider range of expression.

Conclusively, as the field of AI continues to evolve, integrating equitable practices and addressing biases in building and deploying IR systems becomes increasingly imperative. Such advancements promise to pave the way for technology that is more inclusive and representative of the diverse user base it serves.

Dice Question Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Follow-up Questions

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Authors (1)

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com