Exploring the Sensitivity of LLMs' Decision-Making Capabilities: Insights from Prompt Variation and Hyperparameters

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2312.17476v1
• Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2023 05:19:11 GMT
• Title: Exploring the Sensitivity of LLMs' Decision-Making Capabilities: Insights from Prompt Variation and Hyperparameters
• Authors: Manikanta Loya, Divya Anand Sinha, Richard Futrell
• Abstract summary: We study how Large Language Models respond to variations in prompts and hyper parameters. By experimenting on three OpenAI language models possessing different capabilities, we observe that the decision making abilities fluctuate based on the input prompts and temperature settings. Contrary to previous findings language models display a human-like exploration exploitation tradeoff after simple adjustments to the prompt.
• Score: 6.00842499449049
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) has led to their widespread use across a broad spectrum of tasks including decision making. Prior studies have compared the decision making abilities of LLMs with those of humans from a psychological perspective. However, these studies have not always properly accounted for the sensitivity of LLMs' behavior to hyperparameters and variations in the prompt. In this study, we examine LLMs' performance on the Horizon decision making task studied by Binz and Schulz (2023) analyzing how LLMs respond to variations in prompts and hyperparameters. By experimenting on three OpenAI language models possessing different capabilities, we observe that the decision making abilities fluctuate based on the input prompts and temperature settings. Contrary to previous findings language models display a human-like exploration exploitation tradeoff after simple adjustments to the prompt.

Related papers

• Reinforcement Learning for Aligning Large Language Models Agents with Interactive Environments: Quantifying and Mitigating Prompt Overfitting [40.78026627009521]
  Reinforcement learning (RL) is a promising approach for aligning large language models (LLMs) knowledge with sequential decision-making tasks. We propose a novel framework to analyze the sensitivity of LLMs to prompt formulations following RL training in a textual environment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-25T18:25:35Z)
• Do Large Language Models Possess Sensitive to Sentiment? [18.88126980975737]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently displayed their extraordinary capabilities in language understanding. This paper investigates the ability of LLMs to detect and react to sentiment in text modal.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-04T01:40:20Z)
• Social Bias Evaluation for Large Language Models Requires Prompt Variations [38.91306092184724]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit considerable social biases. This paper investigates the sensitivity of LLMs when changing prompt variations. We show that LLMs have tradeoffs between performance and social bias caused by the prompts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-03T14:12:04Z)
• Modulating Language Model Experiences through Frictions [56.17593192325438]
  Over-consumption of language model outputs risks propagating unchecked errors in the short-term and damaging human capabilities for critical thinking in the long-term. We propose selective frictions for language model experiences, inspired by behavioral science interventions, to dampen misuse.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T16:31:11Z)
• Character is Destiny: Can Role-Playing Language Agents Make Persona-Driven Decisions? [59.0123596591807]
  We benchmark the ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) in persona-driven decision-making. We investigate whether LLMs can predict characters' decisions provided by the preceding stories in high-quality novels. The results demonstrate that state-of-the-art LLMs exhibit promising capabilities in this task, yet substantial room for improvement remains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-18T12:40:59Z)
• 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)
• The Strong Pull of Prior Knowledge in Large Language Models and Its Impact on Emotion Recognition [74.04775677110179]
  In-context Learning (ICL) has emerged as a powerful paradigm for performing natural language tasks with Large Language Models (LLM) We show that LLMs have strong yet inconsistent priors in emotion recognition that ossify their predictions. Our results suggest that caution is needed when using ICL with larger LLMs for affect-centered tasks outside their pre-training domain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-25T19:07:32Z)
• You don't need a personality test to know these models are unreliable: Assessing the Reliability of Large Language Models on Psychometric Instruments [37.03210795084276]
  We examine whether the current format of prompting Large Language Models elicits responses in a consistent and robust manner. Our experiments on 17 different LLMs reveal that even simple perturbations significantly downgrade a model's question-answering ability. Our results suggest that the currently widespread practice of prompting is insufficient to accurately and reliably capture model perceptions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T09:50:53Z)
• Do LLMs exhibit human-like response biases? A case study in survey design [66.1850490474361]
  We investigate the extent to which large language models (LLMs) reflect human response biases, if at all. We design a dataset and framework to evaluate whether LLMs exhibit human-like response biases in survey questionnaires. Our comprehensive evaluation of nine models shows that popular open and commercial LLMs generally fail to reflect human-like behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-07T15:40:43Z)
• 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)

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.