Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 22 references

Conservative Bias in Large Language Models: Measuring Relation Predictions

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read In relation extraction, LLMs default to 'no relation' about twice as often as they hallucinate.

desk verdict The phenomenon is real and the three-tier prompt design is a useful contribution, but the headline 'twice as often as hallucination' doesn't survive contact with the paper's own metrics. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08120 v1 pith:BKLRYZN7 submitted 2025-06-09 cs.CL

Toyin Aguda , Erik Wilson , Allan Anzagira , Simerjot Kaur , Charese Smiley This is my paper
classification cs.CL
keywords conservativebiasrelationextractionLLMhallucinationHobson'schoiceNO_RELATIONdefaultsemanticsimilaritychain-of-thoughtreasoningpromptdesign
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that a large language model's main failure mode in relation extraction is not making things up. When the true relation is missing from the fixed option list, the model usually plays safe: it outputs NO_RELATION or the least bad option, even though its own step-by-step reasoning names the relation it would prefer. The authors call this conservative bias and model it as a Hobson's choice, where every available option is wrong but the model must choose one. Their headline finding is that conservative bias occurs about twice as often as hallucination, with the ratio varying by model, dataset, and temperature. If correct, this matters because closed-option extraction silently discards information the model can express, and some of that lost signal may be recoverable from reasoning.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pair of counting definitions built around the Hobson's choice: HCR measures how often the model defaults to NO_RELATION or a suboptimal option, and CBR measures how often, among those defaults, the model's reasoning nevertheless names a more suitable relation. Detection requires three prompt tiers: constrained prompts give a fixed option list, semi-constrained prompts allow proposing a novel relation, and open-ended prompts impose no list at all. The step-by-step instruction exposes the reasoning that conservative bias is defined on, and the semantic-similarity comparison with semi-constrained and open-ended outputs is what validates that the reasoning-suggested relation is a real lost alternative rather than noise.

What would settle it

A direct check: take a labeled set and remove the true relation from the option list, then see whether the model's reasoning names the true relation before the model outputs NO_RELATION. The conservative-bias claim predicts this happens far above chance; if the named relation matches the gold label about as often as a random relation from the options would, the measured information loss is an artifact of self-consistent but incorrect reasoning.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that LLMs show a systematic, measurable conservative bias in relation extraction: when the correct relation is not among the provided options, the model recognizes a valid relation in its reasoning, is aware that the option is unavailable, and nevertheless concludes with NO_RELATION (or the least incorrect option) rather than risk an unsupported label. The authors formalize this with the Conservative Bias Rate, $CBR = N_{CB}/N_{HC}$, the share of Hobson's-choice defaults in which the reasoning names a better relation, and the Hallucination Rate, $HR = N_H/N_{total}$. They observe an inverse relationship between CBR and HR: GPT-4 shows very low hallucination on constrained prompts (0.02--0.04% on one financial dataset) alongside elevated conservative bias, while a smaller open model shows the opposite pattern. To show the lost labels are real, they compare reasoning-suggested labels against the same model's semi-constrained and open-ended outputs using SBERT and a GPT-4 semantic-similarity prompt, finding 54--62% of conservative-bias labels on the financial dataset exceed the 0.7 similarity threshold. The conclusion is that conservative bias is a distinct failure mode, more frequent than hallucination in several settings, and potentially recoverable.

Load-bearing premise

The measured conservative-bias rate rests on trusting that the chain-of-thought reasoning the model prints truly reflects what relation it recognizes, so if the reasoning is plausible but unfaithful, a 'recognized valid relation' may not actually exist and the claimed information loss is inflated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Relation extraction pipelines that score only constrained final labels will under-report relations the model can articulate, so recall estimates will be too pessimistic.
  • Suppressing hallucination in an extraction system will, under this account, push answers toward NO_RELATION; the two goals trade off rather than align.
  • Reasoning text becomes a recoverable signal: labels suggested in chain-of-thought and validated against semi-constrained or open outputs can expand or refine relation schemas.
  • Evaluation reports for LLM relation extraction should include a conservative-bias rate alongside hallucination rate, since both are failure modes with opposite costs.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension the paper does not run: the same conservative bias may appear in any closed-option classification with an incomplete option set, so the mechanism is probably not specific to relation extraction.
  • If the reasoning is faithful, adding an explicit 'none of these, but here is my best guess' option to constrained prompts should recover much of the lost signal; this is a directly testable prompt variant the authors only gesture at.
  • The paper attributes the behavior to alignment, but that attribution is speculative; comparing instruction-tuned and base checkpoints of the same model on identical prompts would separate alignment-induced caution from a more general uncertainty behavior.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper defines Conservative Bias (CB) in LLM relation extraction as the tendency to default to NO_RELATION or a suboptimal option while the chain of thought suggests a more appropriate relation. It introduces the notion of Hobson's choice and four metrics (HCR, CBR, HR, NRR), and evaluates GPT-4, Llama3.1-8B-Instruct, and Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.3 on REFinD and TACRED under constrained, semi-constrained, and open-ended prompts. The paper claims that conservative bias occurs twice as often as hallucination and that CB-flagged suggestions can be used to expand relation labels. The main evidence is Table 1 and the semantic similarity results in Table 2 and Appendix A.1.

Significance. The paper identifies a plausible and under-explored failure mode: closed-option relation extraction may discard relations that the model can articulate in its reasoning. If the central claims were established, the results would matter for how relation extraction is prompted and evaluated, and the proposed HCR/CBR/HR/NRR framework would be a useful starting point. The experimental design is systematic in covering three prompt types, two datasets, three models, and two temperature settings, and Appendix A.3 provides concrete prompt templates. However, the headline magnitude of the effect is not supported by the metrics as defined, and the detection of CB relies on the model's own reasoning and same-family outputs rather than on ground truth. The contribution is therefore promising but not yet demonstrated.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, Eqs. (1)-(2); §4.1.1, Table 1] The headline 'conservative bias occurs twice as often as hallucination' is not supported by the reported metrics because CBR and HR are not on a common denominator. CBR = N_CB/N_HC is conditional on the model having already made a Hobson's choice, whereas HR = N_H/N_total is an unconditional per-task rate. Using Table 1's own values, GPT-4 on TACRED at temperature 0.2 has CBR 7.99% and HCR 1.23%, so the unconditional CB rate is roughly 7.99% × 1.23% ≈ 0.10%, against an HR of 15.47%: the opposite of 'twice as often.' On REFinD at temperature 0.2 the unconditional rate is 1.14% × 57.72% ≈ 0.66% against HR 0.04%, a ratio of about 16, not 2. The correct unconditional CB rate, CBR × HCR, should be reported, or the comparison should be reframed as a conditional one; the abstract and §4.1.1 should be revised accordingly.
  2. [§4 (Data); §3 (CB conditions)] The evaluation is restricted to the subset of instances whose gold label is NO_RELATION/OTHER (45% of REFinD, 79.5% of TACRED). On that subset the gold label asserts that no relation exists, so the model's chain-of-thought claim that 'a valid relation exists' cannot be checked against ground truth; under the dataset's own labeling, the suggested relation is unsupported. CB detection therefore rests entirely on the model's self-report, and the reported N_CB may count reasoning-time hallucinations as conservative bias. To support the claim of information loss, the experiment should include instances with positive gold relations that are absent from the option set, or validate a sample of CB-flagged suggestions against human judgments.
  3. [§4.1.2, Table A.3; §8] The semantic validation compares CB-flagged constrained outputs only with the same model family's semi-constrained and open-ended outputs, scored by SBERT or a GPT-4 semantic-similarity prompt. This establishes self-consistency across prompt variants, not correctness: all three prompts can be wrong in the same way. The paper's Limitations section explicitly acknowledges the absence of human evaluation. Please add human evaluation of a sample of CB-flagged instances (both the suggested relation and the final label), or compare the CB suggestions against an external relation-extraction gold standard, and report the precision of the CB detector.
  4. [§3.2, Eq. (1)] The definition of N_HC is internally inconsistent. The prose says HCR captures defaults to 'NO_RELATION (or suboptimal option)' and condition (iii) of CB includes selecting 'the least incorrect (suboptimal) option,' but Eq. (1) defines N_HC as 'Number of times the model selects NO_RELATION as the least incorrect option.' If suboptimal non-NO_RELATION choices are counted in N_HC, then CBR's denominator is not simply the NO_RELATION count and the metric's interpretation changes; if they are not, then the prose overstates HCR. Please define N_HC unambiguously and align the prose, the condition list, and the equation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.1.1] The 'quadrupling (4x)' statement for semi-constrained REFinD does not hold for temperature 0.5: 40.68/7.27 ≈ 5.6.
  2. [§4.1.2] The similarity threshold of 0.7 is said to align with Okazaki and Tsujii (2010), but that paper addresses approximate dictionary matching rather than semantic similarity; please replace the citation or justify the threshold empirically.
  3. [Table A.4] Labeling run-to-run Cohen's kappa as 'inter-annotator agreement' is misleading; these are repeated model runs, not independent annotators.
  4. [Table 2] The 'µ' column heading is undefined in the caption; it appears to be the mean similarity but should be stated explicitly.
  5. [§4.1.1, Table 1] The paper says multiple iterations were run per temperature, but Table 1 reports only a single percentage per condition; please state the number of iterations and report the variance or confidence intervals for the headline rates.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Self-referential validation loop: CB 'valid relation' is asserted by the model's chain-of-thought and confirmed by comparing to the same model's semi/open outputs, so the information-loss claim is not independently grounded.

  1. self definitional [Section 4, Prompt Setup; Section 3, CB detection conditions; Section 4.1.2]
    "Outputs from semi-constrained and open-ended prompts will be used to validate the CB behavior in the constrained prompt."

    The definition of CB (Section 3, conditions i and iv) requires 'the model recognizes that a valid relation exists, as outputted in the reasoning' and 'the model demonstrates awareness of the correct relation through reasoning.' The validation of those CB labels then compares the constrained-prompt reasoning with the same model's semi-constrained/open-ended outputs via SBERT/GPT-4 semantic similarity (Section 4.1.2). Both the target ('valid relation') and the reference ('validation') are produced by the same LLM on the same instance, so a high similarity score only shows that the model is self-consistent across prompts; it cannot establish that the suggested relation is actually valid or that information is lost.

full rationale

The paper's central observable—that models default to NO_RELATION under constrained prompts—is directly measurable and not circular. However, the load-bearing claim that this default represents 'conservative bias' in the sense of suppressing a valid relation depends on conditions (i) and (iv), which are established only by the model's chain-of-thought reasoning. The attempted validation in Section 4.1.2 compares those reasoning-based suggestions to the same model's semi-constrained and open-ended outputs, so the ground truth for 'valid relation' is the model itself. This is a self-referential validation loop: it confirms that the model can articulate a relation under different prompt constraints, not that the relation is correct or that an external information loss occurred. The abstract's 'twice as often as hallucination' comparison is also problematic because CBR is conditional on N_HC while HR is unconditional on N_total, but this is a metric-comparison/correctness issue, not a circularity, and does not affect the score. No load-bearing self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems were found; the REFinD citation is a normal dataset reference. Because the CB detection and validation both reduce to the same model's outputs, the 'information loss' conclusion is partially circular, though the raw default-to-no_relation observation remains independent.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The main free inputs are the 0.7 semantic similarity threshold and the trust placed in chain-of-thought reasoning as ground truth. The validation of conservative bias suggestions uses the same model family as the reference. These choices, not the public datasets, do most of the work in producing the reported percentages.

free parameters (1)
  • semantic_similarity_threshold = 0.7
    Hand-chosen cutoff for declaring two relation labels semantically equivalent. The cited source (Okazaki and Tsujii 2010) is about approximate dictionary matching and does not justify this threshold for LLM-generated relation labels.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Chain-of-thought reasoning in the constrained prompt truthfully exposes whether the model recognizes a valid relation.
    CBR counts N_CB only when the reasoning output names a better relation (Section 3, conditions i and iv, Figure 1). No check against human labels or external knowledge is performed.
  • domain assumption Semantic similarity above 0.7 between constrained-prompt suggestions and semi/open-prompt outputs establishes that the suggested relation is valid.
    Section 4.1.2 and Table A.3 use this to validate conservative bias. It assumes the semi-constrained and open-ended outputs are correct references and that the threshold is meaningful.
  • domain assumption Gold no_relation examples are the right test bed for measuring conservative bias, and defaults to no_relation in those examples represent a missed option rather than the gold label being correct.
    Section 4 restricts to gold no_relation subsets (45% of REFinD, 79.5% of TACRED) and treats no_relation defaults as Hobson's choice. For true negatives, defaulting to no_relation is correct and not information loss.
invented entities (2)
  • Conservative Bias (CB)
    purpose: Quantifies the tendency to default to the least incorrect option, usually no_relation, while reasoning names a better relation.
    Defined and measured only through the paper's prompts and metrics. No external benchmark or human-labeled ground truth establishes that the reasoning-suggested relations are actually correct.
  • Hobson's choice
    purpose: Labels the scenario where no listed option fits and the model picks no_relation as the least incorrect choice.
    Descriptive label for the Hobson's Choice Rate metric. It inherits the same self-referential measurement issue as Conservative Bias.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Conservative Bias in Large Language Models: Measuring Relation Predictions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BKLRYZN7

@misc{pith2026250608120,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Conservative Bias in Large Language Models: Measuring Relation Predictions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BKLRYZN7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08120}
}
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit pronounced conservative bias in relation extraction tasks, frequently defaulting to No_Relation label when an appropriate option is unavailable. While this behavior helps prevent incorrect relation assignments, our analysis reveals that it also leads to significant information loss when reasoning is not explicitly included in the output. We systematically evaluate this trade-off across multiple prompts, datasets, and relation types, introducing the concept of Hobson's choice to capture scenarios where models opt for safe but uninformative labels over hallucinated ones. Our findings suggest that conservative bias occurs twice as often as hallucination. To quantify this effect, we use SBERT and LLM prompts to capture the semantic similarity between conservative bias behaviors in constrained prompts and labels generated from semi-constrained and open-ended prompts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.08120 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example LLM Output from REFinD dataset demonstrating Hobson’s Choice and Conservative Bias behavior. 2 Related Work Recent studies have highlighted emergent behav￾iors in LLM, such as sycophancy and hallucination, which impact their reliability and trustworthiness in downstream applications (Rrv et al., 2024). Syco￾phancy refers to the tendency of models to align their responses with user views, regardless of ob￾jec… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Process Workflow. We adopted a multi-tiered approach to prompt design, where each level offers varying degrees of specificity to the LLMs. This approach explores how different levels of constraint affect the LLMs’ ability to generate and select appropriate relations. The prompt categories are defined as follows: Open-ended Prompts: represent the least con￾strained interaction with LLMs. In this setup, no predefined … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Rie Kubota Ando and Tong Zhang. 2005. A framework for learning predictive structures from multiple tasks and unlabeled data. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 6:1817--1853

    2005

  2. [2]

    Galen Andrew and Jianfeng Gao. 2007. Scalable training of L1 -regularized log-linear models. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 33--40

    2007

  3. [4]

    Lei Huang, Weijiang Yu, Weitao Ma, Weihong Zhong, Zhangyin Feng, Haotian Wang, Qianglong Chen, Weihua Peng, Xiaocheng Feng, Bing Qin, and Ting Liu. 2025 b . https://doi.org/10.1145/3703155 A survey on hallucination in large language models: Principles, taxonomy, challenges, and open questions . ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 43(2):1–55

    doi:10.1145/3703155 2025

  4. [5]

    Xuhui Jiang, Yuxing Tian, Fengrui Hua, Chengjin Xu, Yuanzhuo Wang, and Jian Guo. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.06647 A survey on large language model hallucination via a creativity perspective . Preprint, arXiv:2402.06647

    arXiv 2024

  5. [6]

    Simerjot Kaur, Charese Smiley, Akshat Gupta, Joy Sain, Dongsheng Wang, Suchetha Siddagangappa, Toyin Aguda, and Sameena Shah. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1145/3539618.3591911 Refind: Relation extraction financial dataset . In Proceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR '23, page 3054–...

    arXiv 2023

  6. [7]

    Junyi Li, Jie Chen, Ruiyang Ren, Xiaoxue Cheng, Xin Zhao, Jian-Yun Nie, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.586 The dawn after the dark: An empirical study on factuality hallucination in large language models . In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), p...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.586 2024

  7. [8]

    Hunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yura Burda, Harri Edwards, Bowen Baker, Teddy Lee, Jan Leike, John Schulman, Ilya Sutskever, and Karl Cobbe. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.20050 Let's verify step by step . Preprint, arXiv:2305.20050

    arXiv 2023

  8. [9]

    Ling Luo, Po-Ting Lai, Chih-Hsuan Wei, Cecilia N Arighi, and Zhiyong Lu. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbac282 Biored: a rich biomedical relation extraction dataset . Briefings in Bioinformatics, 23(5)

    doi:10.1093/bib/bbac282 2022

Show all 22 references
  1. [10]

    Mary McHugh. 2012. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2012.031 Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic . Biochemia medica : časopis Hrvatskoga društva medicinskih biokemičara / HDMB, 22:276--82

    2012 doi

  2. [11]

    Naoaki Okazaki and Jun ' ichi Tsujii. 2010. https://aclanthology.org/C10-1096/ Simple and efficient algorithm for approximate dictionary matching . In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Coling 2010), pages 851--859, Beijing, China. C...

    2010

  3. [12]

    Tetreault

    Mohammad Sadegh Rasooli and Joel R. Tetreault. 2015. http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.06733 Yara parser: A fast and accurate dependency parser . Computing Research Repository, arXiv:1503.06733. Version 2

    2015 arXiv

  4. [13]

    Aswin Rrv, Nemika Tyagi, Md Nayem Uddin, Neeraj Varshney, and Chitta Baral. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.755 Chaos with keywords: Exposing large language models sycophancy to misleading keywords and evaluating defense strategies . In Findings of the Asso...

    2024 doi

  5. [14]

    Mobashir Sadat, Zhengyu Zhou, Lukas Lange, Jun Araki, Arsalan Gundroo, Bingqing Wang, Rakesh Menon, Md Parvez, and Zhe Feng. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.59 D elucion QA : Detecting hallucinations in domain-specific question answering . In Findings of ...

    2023 doi

  6. [15]

    Pranab Sahoo, Prabhash Meharia, Akash Ghosh, Sriparna Saha, Vinija Jain, and Aman Chadha. 2024. A comprehensive survey of hallucination in large language, image, video and audio foundation models. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024, pages 117...

    2024

  7. [16]

    Bowman, Newton Cheng, Esin Durmus, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Scott R

    Mrinank Sharma, Meg Tong, Tomasz Korbak, David Duvenaud, Amanda Askell, Samuel R. Bowman, Newton Cheng, Esin Durmus, Zac Hatfield-Dodds, Scott R. Johnston, Shauna Kravec, Timothy Maxwell, Sam McCandlish, Kamal Ndousse, Oliver Rausch, Nicholas Schiefer, Da Yan, Miranda Zhang, a...

    2025 arXiv

  8. [17]

    Gaurang Sriramanan, Siddhant Bharti, Vinu Sankar Sadasivan, Shoumik Saha, Priyatham Kattakinda, and Soheil Feizi. 2024. https://openreview.net/forum?id=LYx4w3CAgy LLM -check: Investigating detection of hallucinations in large language models . In The Thirty-eighth Annual Confe...

    2024

  9. [18]

    Weihang Su, Yichen Tang, Qingyao Ai, Changyue Wang, Zhijing Wu, and Yiqun Liu. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.09417 Mitigating entity-level hallucination in large language models . Preprint, arXiv:2407.09417

    2024 arXiv

  10. [19]

    Somin Wadhwa, Silvio Amir, and Byron Wallace. 2023. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.868 Revisiting relation extraction in the era of large language models . In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Pap...

    2023 doi

  11. [20]

    Jerry Wei, Da Huang, Yifeng Lu, Denny Zhou, and Quoc V. Le. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.03958 Simple synthetic data reduces sycophancy in large language models . Preprint, arXiv:2308.03958

    2024 arXiv

  12. [21]

    Yakir Yehuda, Itzik Malkiel, Oren Barkan, Jonathan Weill, Royi Ronen, and Noam Koenigstein. 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.506 I nterrogate LLM : Zero-resource hallucination detection in LLM -generated answers . In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the...

    2024 doi

  13. [22]

    Muru Zhang, Ofir Press, William Merrill, Alisa Liu, and Noah A. Smith. 2024. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v235/zhang24ay.html How language model hallucinations can snowball . In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 235 of Proceedings of...

    2024

  14. [23]

    Yuhao Zhang, Victor Zhong, Danqi Chen, Gabor Angeli, and Christopher D Manning. 2017. Position-aware attention and supervised data improve slot filling. In Conference on empirical methods in natural language processing

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.