From Values to Opinions: Predicting Human Behaviors and Stances Using Value-Injected Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2310.17857v1
• Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2023 02:18:10 GMT
• Title: From Values to Opinions: Predicting Human Behaviors and Stances Using Value-Injected Large Language Models
• Authors: Dongjun Kang, Joonsuk Park, Yohan Jo, JinYeong Bak
• Abstract summary: We propose to use value-injected large language models (LLM) to predict opinions and behaviors. We conduct a series of experiments on four tasks to test the effectiveness of VIM. Results suggest that opinions and behaviors can be better predicted using value-injected LLMs than the baseline approaches.
• Score: 10.520548925719565
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Being able to predict people's opinions on issues and behaviors in realistic scenarios can be helpful in various domains, such as politics and marketing. However, conducting large-scale surveys like the European Social Survey to solicit people's opinions on individual issues can incur prohibitive costs. Leveraging prior research showing influence of core human values on individual decisions and actions, we propose to use value-injected large language models (LLM) to predict opinions and behaviors. To this end, we present Value Injection Method (VIM), a collection of two methods -- argument generation and question answering -- designed to inject targeted value distributions into LLMs via fine-tuning. We then conduct a series of experiments on four tasks to test the effectiveness of VIM and the possibility of using value-injected LLMs to predict opinions and behaviors of people. We find that LLMs value-injected with variations of VIM substantially outperform the baselines. Also, the results suggest that opinions and behaviors can be better predicted using value-injected LLMs than the baseline approaches.

Related papers

• CLASH: Evaluating Language Models on Judging High-Stakes Dilemmas from Multiple Perspectives [3.7731230532888036]
  CLASH (Character perspective-based LLM Assessments in Situations with High-stakes) is a dataset consisting of 345 high-impact dilemmas along with 3,795 individual perspectives of diverse values. Even the strongest models, such as GPT-4o and Claude-Sonnet, achieve less than 50% accuracy in identifying situations where the decision should be ambivalent.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-15T02:54:16Z)
• Should you use LLMs to simulate opinions? Quality checks for early-stage deliberation [5.4260854377259315]
  We introduce a series of quality checks to support early-stage deliberation about the viability of using large language models for simulating human opinions. We demonstrate the usefulness of the proposed quality control tests in the context of AI-assisted content moderation. We conclude by discussing implications of these failure modes and recommend how organizations can utilize our proposed tests for prompt engineering.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-11T20:16:02Z)
• Value Compass Leaderboard: A Platform for Fundamental and Validated Evaluation of LLMs Values [76.70893269183684]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve remarkable breakthroughs, aligning their values with humans has become imperative. Existing evaluations focus narrowly on safety risks such as bias and toxicity. Existing benchmarks are prone to data contamination. The pluralistic nature of human values across individuals and cultures is largely ignored in measuring LLMs value alignment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-13T05:53:56Z)
• Diverging Preferences: When do Annotators Disagree and do Models Know? [92.24651142187989]
  We develop a taxonomy of disagreement sources spanning 10 categories across four high-level classes. We find that the majority of disagreements are in opposition with standard reward modeling approaches. We develop methods for identifying diverging preferences to mitigate their influence on evaluation and training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T17:32:22Z)
• Evaluating Implicit Bias in Large Language Models by Attacking From a Psychometric Perspective [66.34066553400108]
  We conduct a rigorous evaluation of large language models' implicit bias towards certain demographics. Inspired by psychometric principles, we propose three attack approaches, i.e., Disguise, Deception, and Teaching. Our methods can elicit LLMs' inner bias more effectively than competitive baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T06:42:08Z)
• Bayesian Statistical Modeling with Predictors from LLMs [5.5711773076846365]
  State of the art large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive performance on a variety of benchmark tasks. This raises questions about the human-likeness of LLM-derived information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T11:33:30Z)
• Decision-Making Behavior Evaluation Framework for LLMs under Uncertain Context [5.361970694197912]
  This paper proposes a framework, grounded in behavioral economics, to evaluate the decision-making behaviors of large language models (LLMs) We estimate the degree of risk preference, probability weighting, and loss aversion in a context-free setting for three commercial LLMs: ChatGPT-4.0-Turbo, Claude-3-Opus, and Gemini-1.0-pro. Our results reveal that LLMs generally exhibit patterns similar to humans, such as risk aversion and loss aversion, with a tendency to overweight small probabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-10T02:14:19Z)
• Preference Fine-Tuning of LLMs Should Leverage Suboptimal, On-Policy Data [102.16105233826917]
  Learning from preference labels plays a crucial role in fine-tuning large language models. There are several distinct approaches for preference fine-tuning, including supervised learning, on-policy reinforcement learning (RL), and contrastive learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-22T17:20:18Z)
• Evaluating Interventional Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models [58.52919374786108]
  Large language models (LLMs) can estimate causal effects under interventions on different parts of a system. We conduct empirical analyses to evaluate whether LLMs can accurately update their knowledge of a data-generating process in response to an intervention. We create benchmarks that span diverse causal graphs (e.g., confounding, mediation) and variable types, and enable a study of intervention-based reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-08T14:15:56Z)
• Explaining Large Language Models Decisions Using Shapley Values [1.223779595809275]
  Large language models (LLMs) have opened up exciting possibilities for simulating human behavior and cognitive processes. However, the validity of utilizing LLMs as stand-ins for human subjects remains uncertain. This paper presents a novel approach based on Shapley values to interpret LLM behavior and quantify the relative contribution of each prompt component to the model's output.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-29T22:49:43Z)
• Using LLMs to Model the Beliefs and Preferences of Targeted Populations [4.0849074543032105]
  We consider the problem of aligning a large language model (LLM) to model the preferences of a human population. Modeling the beliefs, preferences, and behaviors of a specific population can be useful for a variety of different applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-29T15:58:46Z)
• Exploring Value Biases: How LLMs Deviate Towards the Ideal [57.99044181599786]
  Large-Language-Models (LLMs) are deployed in a wide range of applications, and their response has an increasing social impact. We show that value bias is strong in LLMs across different categories, similar to the results found in human studies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-16T18:28:43Z)
• The Challenge of Using LLMs to Simulate Human Behavior: A Causal Inference Perspective [0.32634122554913997]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive potential to simulate human behavior. We show that variations in the treatment included in the prompt can cause variations in unspecified confounding factors. We propose a theoretical framework suggesting this endogeneity issue generalizes to other contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-24T16:32:35Z)
• On Diversified Preferences of Large Language Model Alignment [51.26149027399505]
  This paper presents the first quantitative analysis of the experimental scaling law for reward models with varying sizes. Our analysis reveals that the impact of diversified human preferences depends on both model size and data size. Larger models with sufficient capacity mitigate the negative effects of diverse preferences, while smaller models struggle to accommodate them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-12T16:17:15Z)
• Exploring the Reliability of Large Language Models as Customized Evaluators for Diverse NLP Tasks [65.69651759036535]
  We analyze whether large language models (LLMs) can serve as reliable alternatives to humans. This paper explores both conventional tasks (e.g., story generation) and alignment tasks (e.g., math reasoning) We find that LLM evaluators can generate unnecessary criteria or omit crucial criteria, resulting in a slight deviation from the experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T17:04:35Z)
• Heterogeneous Value Alignment Evaluation for Large Language Models [91.96728871418]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have made it crucial to align their values with those of humans. We propose a Heterogeneous Value Alignment Evaluation (HVAE) system to assess the success of aligning LLMs with heterogeneous values.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-26T02:34:20Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.