How Far Are LLMs from Believable AI? A Benchmark for Evaluating the Believability of Human Behavior Simulation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2312.17115v2
• Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 14:08:30 GMT
• Title: How Far Are LLMs from Believable AI? A Benchmark for Evaluating the Believability of Human Behavior Simulation
• Authors: Yang Xiao, Yi Cheng, Jinlan Fu, Jiashuo Wang, Wenjie Li, Pengfei Liu,
• Abstract summary: We design SimulateBench to evaluate the believability of large language models (LLMs) when simulating human behaviors. Based on SimulateBench, we evaluate the performances of 10 widely used LLMs when simulating characters.
• Score: 46.42384207122049
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: In recent years, AI has demonstrated remarkable capabilities in simulating human behaviors, particularly those implemented with large language models (LLMs). However, due to the lack of systematic evaluation of LLMs' simulated behaviors, the believability of LLMs among humans remains ambiguous, i.e., it is unclear which behaviors of LLMs are convincingly human-like and which need further improvements. In this work, we design SimulateBench to evaluate the believability of LLMs when simulating human behaviors. In specific, we evaluate the believability of LLMs based on two critical dimensions: 1) consistency: the extent to which LLMs can behave consistently with the given information of a human to simulate; and 2) robustness: the ability of LLMs' simulated behaviors to remain robust when faced with perturbations. SimulateBench includes 65 character profiles and a total of 8,400 questions to examine LLMs' simulated behaviors. Based on SimulateBench, we evaluate the performances of 10 widely used LLMs when simulating characters. The experimental results reveal that current LLMs struggle to align their behaviors with assigned characters and are vulnerable to perturbations in certain factors.

Related papers

• CIBench: Evaluating Your LLMs with a Code Interpreter Plugin [68.95137938214862]
  We propose an interactive evaluation framework, named CIBench, to comprehensively assess LLMs' ability to utilize code interpreters for data science tasks. The evaluation dataset is constructed using an LLM-human cooperative approach and simulates an authentic workflow by leveraging consecutive and interactive IPython sessions. We conduct extensive experiments to analyze the ability of 24 LLMs on CIBench and provide valuable insights for future LLMs in code interpreter utilization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-15T07:43:55Z)
• Q*: Improving Multi-step Reasoning for LLMs with Deliberative Planning [53.6472920229013]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capability in many natural language tasks. LLMs are prone to produce errors, hallucinations and inconsistent statements when performing multi-step reasoning. We introduce Q*, a framework for guiding LLMs decoding process with deliberative planning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T13:08:09Z)
• 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)
• LLM-driven Imitation of Subrational Behavior : Illusion or Reality? [3.2365468114603937]
  Existing work highlights the ability of Large Language Models to address complex reasoning tasks and mimic human communication. We propose to investigate the use of LLMs to generate synthetic human demonstrations, which are then used to learn subrational agent policies. We experimentally evaluate the ability of our framework to model sub-rationality through four simple scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-13T19:46:39Z)
• 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)
• Psychometric Predictive Power of Large Language Models [32.31556074470733]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-13T17:19:14Z)
• CoMPosT: Characterizing and Evaluating Caricature in LLM Simulations [61.9212914612875]
  We present a framework to characterize LLM simulations using four dimensions: Context, Model, Persona, and Topic. We use this framework to measure open-ended LLM simulations' susceptibility to caricature, defined via two criteria: individuation and exaggeration. We find that for GPT-4, simulations of certain demographics (political and marginalized groups) and topics (general, uncontroversial) are highly susceptible to caricature.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-17T18:00:25Z)
• Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations? [80.81532239566992]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional performance on unseen tasks when only the task instructions are provided. We show that the result of LLM evaluation is consistent with the results obtained by expert human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-03T07:28:50Z)

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.