Quantifying the Persona Effect in LLM Simulations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.10811v2
• Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 11:06:57 GMT
• Title: Quantifying the Persona Effect in LLM Simulations
• Authors: Tiancheng Hu, Nigel Collier,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable promise in simulating human language and behavior. This study investigates how integrating persona variables-demographic, social, and behavioral factors-impacts LLMs' ability to simulate diverse perspectives. We find that persona variables account for 10% variance in annotations in existing subjective NLP datasets.
• Score: 25.367927300697424
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable promise in simulating human language and behavior. This study investigates how integrating persona variables-demographic, social, and behavioral factors-impacts LLMs' ability to simulate diverse perspectives. We find that persona variables account for <10% variance in annotations in existing subjective NLP datasets. Nonetheless, incorporating persona variables via prompting in LLMs provides modest but statistically significant improvements. Persona prompting is most effective in samples where many annotators disagree, but their disagreements are relatively minor. Notably, we find a linear relationship in our setting: the stronger the correlation between persona variables and human annotations, the more accurate the LLM predictions are using persona prompting. In a zero-shot setting, a powerful 70b model with persona prompting captures 81% of the annotation variance achievable by linear regression trained on ground truth annotations. However, for most subjective NLP datasets, where persona variables have limited explanatory power, the benefits of persona prompting are limited.

Related papers

• Personas with Attitudes: Controlling LLMs for Diverse Data Annotation [4.916264341371062]
  We present a novel approach for enhancing diversity and control in data annotation tasks by personalizing large language models (LLMs) We investigate whether personas increase annotation diversity and whether the impacts of individual personas on the resulting annotations are consistent and controllable.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-15T16:22:49Z)
• Using LLMs for Explaining Sets of Counterfactual Examples to Final Users [0.0]
  In automated decision-making scenarios, causal inference methods can analyze the underlying data-generation process. Counterfactual examples explore hypothetical scenarios where a minimal number of factors are altered. We propose a novel multi-step pipeline that uses counterfactuals to generate natural language explanations of actions that will lead to a change in outcome.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-27T15:13:06Z)
• Modeling Human Subjectivity in LLMs Using Explicit and Implicit Human Factors in Personas [14.650234624251716]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being used in human-centered social scientific tasks. These tasks are highly subjective and dependent on human factors, such as one's environment, attitudes, beliefs, and lived experiences. We examine the role of prompting LLMs with human-like personas and ask the models to answer as if they were a specific human.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T16:24:07Z)
• Evaluating Large Language Model Biases in Persona-Steered Generation [26.92498998306013]
  We show that large language models (LLMs) are 9.7% less steerable towards incongruous personas than congruous ones. Models that are fine-tuned with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) are more steerable, especially towards stances associated with political liberals and women.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-30T17:06:03Z)
• Scaling Data Diversity for Fine-Tuning Language Models in Human Alignment [84.32768080422349]
  Alignment with human preference prevents large language models from generating misleading or toxic content. We propose a new formulation of prompt diversity, implying a linear correlation with the final performance of LLMs after fine-tuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-17T07:08:55Z)
• LLMvsSmall Model? Large Language Model Based Text Augmentation Enhanced Personality Detection Model [58.887561071010985]
  Personality detection aims to detect one's personality traits underlying in social media posts. Most existing methods learn post features directly by fine-tuning the pre-trained language models. We propose a large language model (LLM) based text augmentation enhanced personality detection model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-12T12:10:18Z)
• 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)
• Aligning Large Language Models with Human Opinions through Persona Selection and Value--Belief--Norm Reasoning [67.33899440998175]
  Chain-of-Opinion (COO) is a simple four-step solution modeling which and how to reason with personae. COO distinguishes between explicit personae (demographics and ideology) and implicit personae (historical opinions) COO efficiently achieves new state-of-the-art opinion prediction via prompting with only 5 inference calls, improving prior techniques by up to 4%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T18:48:27Z)
• 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)
• CoAnnotating: Uncertainty-Guided Work Allocation between Human and Large Language Models for Data Annotation [94.59630161324013]
  We propose CoAnnotating, a novel paradigm for Human-LLM co-annotation of unstructured texts at scale. Our empirical study shows CoAnnotating to be an effective means to allocate work from results on different datasets, with up to 21% performance improvement over random baseline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-24T08:56:49Z)

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.