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

• Steering Prosocial AI Agents: Computational Basis of LLM's Decision Making in Social Simulation [7.504095239018173]
  Large language models (LLMs) increasingly serve as human-like decision-making agents in social science and applied settings. This study proposes and tests methods for probing, quantifying, and modifying an LLM's internal representations in a Dictator Game. Manipulating these vectors during the model's inference can substantially alter how those variables relate to the model's decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-16T00:02:28Z)
• Leveraging Human Production-Interpretation Asymmetries to Test LLM Cognitive Plausibility [7.183662547358301]
  We examine whether large language models process language similarly to humans. We find that some LLMs do quantitatively and qualitatively reflect human-like asymmetries between production and interpretation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-21T23:25:42Z)
• I Predict Therefore I Am: Is Next Token Prediction Enough to Learn Human-Interpretable Concepts from Data? [79.01538178959726]
  Large language models (LLMs) have led many to conclude that they exhibit a form of intelligence. We introduce a novel generative model that generates tokens on the basis of human interpretable concepts represented as latent discrete variables.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-12T01:21:17Z)
• What Makes In-context Learning Effective for Mathematical Reasoning: A Theoretical Analysis [81.15503859645149]
  In this paper, we aim to theoretically analyze the impact of in-context demonstrations on large language models' reasoning performance. We propose a straightforward, generalizable, and low-complexity demonstration selection method named LMS3.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-11T11:38:11Z)
• Benchmarking Bias in Large Language Models during Role-Playing [21.28427555283642]
  We introduce BiasLens, a fairness testing framework designed to expose biases in Large Language Models (LLMs) during role-playing. Our approach uses LLMs to generate 550 social roles across a comprehensive set of 11 demographic attributes, producing 33,000 role-specific questions. Using the generated questions as the benchmark, we conduct extensive evaluations of six advanced LLMs released by OpenAI, Mistral AI, Meta, Alibaba, and DeepSeek. Our benchmark reveals 72,716 biased responses across the studied LLMs, with individual models yielding between 7,754 and 16,963 biased responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-01T13:47:00Z)
• 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)
• Justice or Prejudice? Quantifying Biases in LLM-as-a-Judge [84.34545223897578]
  Despite their excellence in many domains, potential issues are under-explored, undermining their reliability and the scope of their utility. We identify 12 key potential biases and propose a new automated bias quantification framework-CALM- which quantifies and analyzes each type of bias in LLM-as-a-Judge. Our work highlights the need for stakeholders to address these issues and remind users to exercise caution in LLM-as-a-Judge applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T17:53:30Z)
• Towards Implicit Bias Detection and Mitigation in Multi-Agent LLM Interactions [25.809599403713506]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being employed in numerous studies to simulate societies and execute diverse social tasks. LLMs are susceptible to societal biases due to their exposure to human-generated data. This study investigates the presence of implicit gender biases in multi-agent LLM interactions and proposes two strategies to mitigate these biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T15:28:05Z)
• Prompt and Prejudice [29.35618753825668]
  This paper investigates the impact of using first names in Large Language Models (LLMs) and Vision Language Models (VLMs) We propose an approach that appends first names to ethically annotated text scenarios to reveal demographic biases in model outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-07T14:11:33Z)
• 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)
• Evaluating Human Alignment and Model Faithfulness of LLM Rationale [66.75309523854476]
  We study how well large language models (LLMs) explain their generations through rationales. We show that prompting-based methods are less "faithful" than attribution-based explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T20:06:30Z)
• Bayesian Statistical Modeling with Predictors from LLMs [5.5711773076846365]
  State of the art large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive performance on a variety of benchmark tasks. This raises questions about the human-likeness of LLM-derived information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T11:33:30Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Interpreting Pretrained Language Models via Concept Bottlenecks [55.47515772358389]
  Pretrained language models (PLMs) have made significant strides in various natural language processing tasks. The lack of interpretability due to their black-box'' nature poses challenges for responsible implementation. We propose a novel approach to interpreting PLMs by employing high-level, meaningful concepts that are easily understandable for humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-08T20:41:18Z)
• 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)
• Generalization Properties of Optimal Transport GANs with Latent Distribution Learning [52.25145141639159]
  We study how the interplay between the latent distribution and the complexity of the pushforward map affects performance. Motivated by our analysis, we advocate learning the latent distribution as well as the pushforward map within the GAN paradigm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-29T07:31:33Z)

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.