Psychometric Predictive Power of Large Language Models
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.07484v3
- Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2024 12:12:24 GMT
- Title: Psychometric Predictive Power of Large Language Models
- Authors: Tatsuki Kuribayashi, Yohei Oseki, Timothy Baldwin,
- Abstract summary: We find that instruction tuning does not always make large language models human-like from a cognitive modeling perspective.
Next-word probabilities estimated by instruction-tuned LLMs are often worse at simulating human reading behavior than those estimated by base LLMs.
- Score: 32.31556074470733
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: Instruction tuning aligns the response of large language models (LLMs) with human preferences. Despite such efforts in human--LLM alignment, we find that instruction tuning does not always make LLMs human-like from a cognitive modeling perspective. More specifically, next-word probabilities estimated by instruction-tuned LLMs are often worse at simulating human reading behavior than those estimated by base LLMs. In addition, we explore prompting methodologies for simulating human reading behavior with LLMs. Our results show that prompts reflecting a particular linguistic hypothesis improve psychometric predictive power, but are still inferior to small base models. These findings highlight that recent advancements in LLMs, i.e., instruction tuning and prompting, do not offer better estimates than direct probability measurements from base LLMs in cognitive modeling. In other words, pure next-word probability remains a strong predictor for human reading behavior, even in the age of LLMs.
Related papers
- 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) - Characterizing Truthfulness in Large Language Model Generations with
Local Intrinsic Dimension [63.330262740414646]
We study how to characterize and predict the truthfulness of texts generated from large language models (LLMs)
We suggest investigating internal activations and quantifying LLM's truthfulness using the local intrinsic dimension (LID) of model activations.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-28T04:56:21Z) - Systematic Biases in LLM Simulations of Debates [14.12892960275563]
This study highlights the limitations of Large Language Models (LLMs) in simulating human interactions.
Our findings indicate a tendency for LLM agents to conform to the model's inherent social biases despite being directed to debate from certain political perspectives.
This tendency results in behavioral patterns that seem to deviate from well-established social dynamics among humans.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-06T14:51:55Z) - CLOMO: Counterfactual Logical Modification with Large Language Models [109.60793869938534]
We introduce a novel task, Counterfactual Logical Modification (CLOMO), and a high-quality human-annotated benchmark.
In this task, LLMs must adeptly alter a given argumentative text to uphold a predetermined logical relationship.
We propose an innovative evaluation metric, the Self-Evaluation Score (SES), to directly evaluate the natural language output of LLMs.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-29T08:29:54Z) - Tailoring Personality Traits in Large Language Models via
Unsupervisedly-Built Personalized Lexicons [42.66142331217763]
Personality plays a pivotal role in shaping human expression patterns.
Previous methods relied on fine-tuning large language models (LLMs) on specific corpora.
We have employed a novel Unsupervisedly-Built personalized lexicon (UBPL) in a pluggable manner to manipulate personality traits.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-25T12:16:33Z) - Evaluating Large Language Models at Evaluating Instruction Following [54.49567482594617]
We introduce a challenging meta-evaluation benchmark, LLMBar, designed to test the ability of an LLM evaluator in discerning instruction-following outputs.
We discover that different evaluators exhibit distinct performance on LLMBar and even the highest-scoring ones have substantial room for improvement.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-11T16:38:11Z) - Are Large Language Models Really Robust to Word-Level Perturbations? [68.60618778027694]
We propose a novel rational evaluation approach that leverages pre-trained reward models as diagnostic tools.
Longer conversations manifest the comprehensive grasp of language models in terms of their proficiency in understanding questions.
Our results demonstrate that LLMs frequently exhibit vulnerability to word-level perturbations that are commonplace in daily language usage.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-09-20T09:23:46Z) - On Learning to Summarize with Large Language Models as References [101.79795027550959]
Large language models (LLMs) are favored by human annotators over the original reference summaries in commonly used summarization datasets.
We study an LLM-as-reference learning setting for smaller text summarization models to investigate whether their performance can be substantially improved.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-05-23T16:56:04Z) - Benchmarking Large Language Models for News Summarization [79.37850439866938]
Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise for automatic summarization but the reasons behind their successes are poorly understood.
We find instruction tuning, and not model size, is the key to the LLM's zero-shot summarization capability.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-01-31T18:46:19Z)
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.