Exploring Value Biases: How LLMs Deviate Towards the Ideal
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.11005v2
- Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2024 22:02:18 GMT
- Title: Exploring Value Biases: How LLMs Deviate Towards the Ideal
- Authors: Sarath Sivaprasad, Pramod Kaushik, Sahar Abdelnabi, Mario Fritz
- Abstract summary: Large-Language-Models (LLMs) are deployed in a wide range of applications, and their response has an increasing social impact.
We show that value bias is strong in LLMs across different categories, similar to the results found in human studies.
- Score: 57.99044181599786
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: Large-Language-Models (LLMs) are deployed in a wide range of applications,
and their response has an increasing social impact. Understanding the
non-deliberate(ive) mechanism of LLMs in giving responses is essential in
explaining their performance and discerning their biases in real-world
applications. This is analogous to human studies, where such inadvertent
responses are referred to as sampling. We study this sampling of LLMs in light
of value bias and show that the sampling of LLMs tends to favour high-value
options. Value bias corresponds to this shift of response from the most likely
towards an ideal value represented in the LLM. In fact, this effect can be
reproduced even with new entities learnt via in-context prompting. We show that
this bias manifests in unexpected places and has implications on relevant
application scenarios, like choosing exemplars. The results show that value
bias is strong in LLMs across different categories, similar to the results
found in human studies.
Related papers
- 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) - Large Language Models are Biased Reinforcement Learners [0.0]
We show that large language models (LLMs) exhibit behavioral signatures of a relative value bias.
Computational cognitive modeling reveals that LLM behavior is well-described by a simple RL algorithm.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-05-19T01:43:52Z) - Wait, It's All Token Noise? Always Has Been: Interpreting LLM Behavior Using Shapley Value [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) - Debiasing Multimodal Large Language Models [61.6896704217147]
Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) have become indispensable tools in computer vision and natural language processing.
Our investigation reveals a noteworthy bias in the generated content, where the output is primarily influenced by the underlying Large Language Models (LLMs) prior to the input image.
To rectify these biases and redirect the model's focus toward vision information, we introduce two simple, training-free strategies.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-08T12:35:07Z) - Political Compass or Spinning Arrow? Towards More Meaningful Evaluations for Values and Opinions in Large Language Models [61.45529177682614]
We challenge the prevailing constrained evaluation paradigm for values and opinions in large language models.
We show that models give substantively different answers when not forced.
We distill these findings into recommendations and open challenges in evaluating values and opinions in LLMs.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-26T18:00:49Z) - Exploring the Jungle of Bias: Political Bias Attribution in Language Models via Dependency Analysis [86.49858739347412]
Large Language Models (LLMs) have sparked intense debate regarding the prevalence of bias in these models and its mitigation.
We propose a prompt-based method for the extraction of confounding and mediating attributes which contribute to the decision process.
We find that the observed disparate treatment can at least in part be attributed to confounding and mitigating attributes and model misalignment.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-15T00:02:25Z) - 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) - Confronting LLMs with Traditional ML: Rethinking the Fairness of Large Language Models in Tabular Classifications [23.963586791210414]
We show that large language models (LLMs) tend to inherit social biases from their training data which significantly impact their fairness in classification tasks.
This observation emphasizes that the social biases are inherent within the LLMs themselves and inherited from their pretraining corpus.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-23T06:31:28Z) - ReEval: Automatic Hallucination Evaluation for Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models via Transferable Adversarial Attacks [91.55895047448249]
This paper presents ReEval, an LLM-based framework using prompt chaining to perturb the original evidence for generating new test cases.
We implement ReEval using ChatGPT and evaluate the resulting variants of two popular open-domain QA datasets.
Our generated data is human-readable and useful to trigger hallucination in large language models.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-19T06:37:32Z)
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.