LLM Voting: Human Choices and AI Collective Decision Making

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.01766v3
• Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 13:41:02 GMT
• Title: LLM Voting: Human Choices and AI Collective Decision Making
• Authors: Joshua C. Yang, Damian Dailisan, Marcin Korecki, Carina I. Hausladen, Dirk Helbing,
• Abstract summary: This paper investigates the voting behaviors of Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically GPT-4 and LLaMA-2. We observed that the choice of voting methods and the presentation order influenced LLM voting outcomes. We found that varying the persona can reduce some of these biases and enhance alignment with human choices.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: This paper investigates the voting behaviors of Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically GPT-4 and LLaMA-2, their biases, and how they align with human voting patterns. Our methodology involved using a dataset from a human voting experiment to establish a baseline for human preferences and conducting a corresponding experiment with LLM agents. We observed that the choice of voting methods and the presentation order influenced LLM voting outcomes. We found that varying the persona can reduce some of these biases and enhance alignment with human choices. While the Chain-of-Thought approach did not improve prediction accuracy, it has potential for AI explainability in the voting process. We also identified a trade-off between preference diversity and alignment accuracy in LLMs, influenced by different temperature settings. Our findings indicate that LLMs may lead to less diverse collective outcomes and biased assumptions when used in voting scenarios, emphasizing the need for cautious integration of LLMs into democratic processes.

Related papers

• Hidden Persuaders: LLMs' Political Leaning and Their Influence on Voters [42.80511959871216]
  We first demonstrate 18 open- and closed-weight LLMs' political preference for a Democratic nominee over a Republican nominee. We show how this leaning towards the Democratic nominee becomes more pronounced in instruction-tuned models. We further explore the potential impact of LLMs on voter choice by conducting an experiment with 935 U.S. registered voters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-31T17:51:00Z)
• 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)
• Uncovering Factor Level Preferences to Improve Human-Model Alignment [58.50191593880829]
  We introduce PROFILE, a framework that uncovers and quantifies the influence of specific factors driving preferences. ProFILE's factor level analysis explains the 'why' behind human-model alignment and misalignment. We demonstrate how leveraging factor level insights, including addressing misaligned factors, can improve alignment with human preferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T15:02:34Z)
• United in Diversity? Contextual Biases in LLM-Based Predictions of the 2024 European Parliament Elections [45.84205238554709]
  Large language models (LLMs) are perceived by some as having the potential to revolutionize social science research. In this study, we examine to what extent LLM-based predictions of public opinion exhibit context-dependent biases. We predict voting behavior in the 2024 European Parliament elections using a state-of-the-art LLM.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-29T16:01:06Z)
• GermanPartiesQA: Benchmarking Commercial Large Language Models for Political Bias and Sycophancy [20.06753067241866]
  We evaluate and compare the alignment of six LLMs by OpenAI, Anthropic, and Cohere with German party positions. We conduct our prompt experiment for which we use the benchmark and sociodemographic data of leading German parliamentarians.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-25T13:04:25Z)
• Vox Populi, Vox AI? Using Language Models to Estimate German Public Opinion [45.84205238554709]
  We generate a synthetic sample of personas matching the individual characteristics of the 2017 German Longitudinal Election Study respondents. We ask the LLM GPT-3.5 to predict each respondent's vote choice and compare these predictions to the survey-based estimates. We find that GPT-3.5 does not predict citizens' vote choice accurately, exhibiting a bias towards the Green and Left parties.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-11T14:52:18Z)
• Large Language Models (LLMs) as Agents for Augmented Democracy [6.491009626125319]
  We explore an augmented democracy system built on off-the-shelf LLMs fine-tuned to augment data on citizen's preferences. We use a train-test cross-validation setup to estimate the accuracy with which the LLMs predict both: a subject's individual political choices and the aggregate preferences of the full sample of participants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-06T13:23:57Z)
• Character is Destiny: Can Large Language Models Simulate Persona-Driven Decisions in Role-Playing? [59.0123596591807]
  We benchmark the ability of Large Language Models in persona-driven decision-making. We investigate whether LLMs can predict characters' decisions provided with the preceding stories in high-quality novels. The results demonstrate that state-of-the-art LLMs exhibit promising capabilities in this task, yet there is substantial room for improvement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-18T12:40:59Z)
• Dissecting Human and LLM Preferences [80.55271307662365]
  We find that humans are less sensitive to errors, favor responses that support their stances, and show clear dislike when models admit their limits. advanced LLMs like GPT-4-Turbo emphasize correctness, clarity, and harmlessness more. We show that preference-based evaluation can be intentionally manipulated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-17T14:34:31Z)

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.