Large Language Models Reflect Human Citation Patterns with a Heightened Citation Bias

Overview

• This paper examines how large language models (LLMs) can generate citations, and how those citations reflect the biases present in the underlying human-written citation patterns.
• The researchers find that LLMs tend to amplify existing citation biases, such as preferential attachment and the Matthew effect, leading to a heightened citation bias in the generated citations.
• The paper provides insights into the behavior of LLMs when it comes to scholarly citation practices, with potential implications for the use of these models in academic writing and research.

Plain English Explanation

Large language models (LLMs) are powerful AI systems that can generate human-like text on a wide range of topics. These models are trained on vast amounts of online data, including academic papers and their citations.

When LLMs are tasked with generating new citations, they tend to mimic the citation patterns they've learned from the training data. This means that the biases present in the original human-written citations, such as a tendency to cite well-known or highly cited papers, are amplified in the model's outputs.

This research paper explores this phenomenon in detail. The researchers find that LLMs are more likely to cite papers that are already highly cited, a phenomenon known as the "Matthew effect." They also observe a "preferential attachment" bias, where the model is more likely to cite papers that already have many citations.

These biases can have important implications for the use of LLMs in academic writing and research. If LLMs are used to generate citations, they may perpetuate existing biases in the scholarly literature, making it harder for new or lesser-known work to gain recognition. This could potentially skew the direction of research and limit the diversity of ideas being explored.

Technical Explanation

The researchers designed a series of experiments to investigate how LLMs generate citations and the biases inherent in their citation patterns. They used a large language model, GPT-3, to generate citations for a set of target papers, and then analyzed the properties of the generated citations.

Their analysis revealed two key biases in the model's citation behavior:

1. Preferential Attachment: The LLM was more likely to cite papers that already had a large number of citations, reflecting a "rich-get-richer" dynamic.

2. Matthew Effect: The model also exhibited a tendency to cite well-known, highly cited papers more frequently than lesser-known work, even when the lesser-known papers were more relevant to the target paper.

These biases were found to be more pronounced in the LLM-generated citations compared to the actual human-written citations for the same target papers. In other words, the model amplified the existing citation biases present in the training data.

The researchers also explored potential remedies for these biases, such as incorporating citation network information or using weighting schemes to encourage more diverse citations. However, they acknowledge that these biases are deeply rooted in the underlying data and may be challenging to mitigate fully.

Critical Analysis

The researchers provide a thorough and well-designed study that sheds light on an important issue in the use of large language models for academic tasks. By analyzing the citation patterns generated by GPT-3, they have uncovered biases that could have significant implications for the use of these models in scholarly writing and research.

One potential limitation of the study is the use of a single language model (GPT-3) and a specific set of target papers. While the findings are likely to generalize to other LLMs, it would be valuable to explore how these biases manifest in a broader range of models and tasks.

Additionally, while the researchers suggest potential remedies for the biases, such as incorporating citation network information, it remains to be seen how effective these approaches would be in practice. Further research is needed to develop robust strategies for mitigating citation biases in LLM-generated content.

Another area for further exploration could be the potential impact of these biases on the broader scholarly ecosystem, such as the way research is discovered, evaluated, and cited. Understanding the systemic implications of heightened citation biases in LLM-assisted research is crucial for ensuring the responsible development and deployment of these powerful AI tools.

Conclusion

This research paper provides valuable insights into the citation biases inherent in large language models. By demonstrating how LLMs can amplify existing biases in human-written citations, the study highlights the need for careful consideration of these models' behaviors and potential pitfalls when used in academic contexts.

As LLMs continue to be explored for a wide range of applications, including academic writing and research support, understanding and mitigating the biases they exhibit will be crucial for ensuring the integrity and diversity of scholarly discourse. This paper lays the groundwork for further research and development in this important area.