Question-answering (QA) and reading comprehension (RC) benchmarks are commonly used for assessing the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) to retrieve and reproduce knowledge. However, we demonstrate that popular QA and RC benchmarks do not cover questions about different demographics or regions in a representative way. We perform a content analysis of 30 benchmark papers and a quantitative analysis of 20 respective benchmark datasets to learn (1) who is involved in the benchmark creation, (2) whether the benchmarks exhibit social bias, or whether this is addressed or prevented, and (3) whether the demographics of the creators and annotators correspond to particular biases in the content. Most benchmark papers analyzed provide insufficient information about those involved in benchmark creation, particularly the annotators. Notably, just one (WinoGrande) explicitly reports measures taken to address social representation issues. Moreover, the data analysis revealed gender, religion, and geographic biases across a wide range of encyclopedic, commonsense, and scholarly benchmarks. Our work adds to the mounting criticism of AI evaluation practices and shines a light on biased benchmarks being a potential source of LLM bias by incentivizing biased inference heuristics.

This paper describes the results of the Knowledge Graph Question Answering (KGQA) shared task that was co-located with the TextGraphs 2024 workshop. In this task, given a textual question and a list of entities with the corresponding KG subgraphs, the participating system should choose the entity that correctly answers the question. Our competition attracted thirty teams, four of which outperformed our strong ChatGPT-based zero-shot baseline. In this paper, we overview the participating systems and analyze their performance according to a large-scale automatic evaluation. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first competition aimed at the KGQA problem using the interaction between large language models (LLMs) and knowledge graphs.

Knowledge graphs are increasingly used in a plethora of downstream tasks or in the augmentation of statistical models to improve factuality. However, social biases are engraved in these representations and propagate downstream. We conducted a critical analysis of literature concerning biases at different steps of a knowledge graph lifecycle. We investigated factors introducing bias, as well as the biases that are rendered by knowledge graphs and their embedded versions afterward. Limitations of existing measurement and mitigation strategies are discussed and paths forward are proposed.