Random Silicon Sampling: Simulating Human Sub-Population Opinion Using a Large Language Model Based on Group-Level Demographic Information

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.18144v1
• Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 08:09:14 GMT
• Title: Random Silicon Sampling: Simulating Human Sub-Population Opinion Using a Large Language Model Based on Group-Level Demographic Information
• Authors: Seungjong Sun, Eungu Lee, Dongyan Nan, Xiangying Zhao, Wonbyung Lee, Bernard J. Jansen, Jang Hyun Kim
• Abstract summary: Large language models exhibit societal biases associated with demographic information. We propose "random silicon sampling," a method to emulate the opinions of the human population sub-group. We find that language models can generate response distributions remarkably similar to the actual U.S. public opinion polls.
• Score: 15.435605802794408
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large language models exhibit societal biases associated with demographic information, including race, gender, and others. Endowing such language models with personalities based on demographic data can enable generating opinions that align with those of humans. Building on this idea, we propose "random silicon sampling," a method to emulate the opinions of the human population sub-group. Our study analyzed 1) a language model that generates the survey responses that correspond with a human group based solely on its demographic distribution and 2) the applicability of our methodology across various demographic subgroups and thematic questions. Through random silicon sampling and using only group-level demographic information, we discovered that language models can generate response distributions that are remarkably similar to the actual U.S. public opinion polls. Moreover, we found that the replicability of language models varies depending on the demographic group and topic of the question, and this can be attributed to inherent societal biases in the models. Our findings demonstrate the feasibility of mirroring a group's opinion using only demographic distribution and elucidate the effect of social biases in language models on such simulations.

Related papers

• Spoken Stereoset: On Evaluating Social Bias Toward Speaker in Speech Large Language Models [50.40276881893513]
  This study introduces Spoken Stereoset, a dataset specifically designed to evaluate social biases in Speech Large Language Models (SLLMs) By examining how different models respond to speech from diverse demographic groups, we aim to identify these biases. The findings indicate that while most models show minimal bias, some still exhibit slightly stereotypical or anti-stereotypical tendencies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-14T16:55:06Z)
• A Probability--Quality Trade-off in Aligned Language Models and its Relation to Sampling Adaptors [50.046717886067555]
  We show that when sampling corpora from an aligned language model, there exists a trade-off between the strings' average reward and average log-likelihood. We provide a formal treatment of this phenomenon and demonstrate how a choice of sampling adaptor allows for a selection of how much likelihood we exchange for the reward.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-14T17:38:21Z)
• Multilingual Text-to-Image Generation Magnifies Gender Stereotypes and Prompt Engineering May Not Help You [64.74707085021858]
  We show that multilingual models suffer from significant gender biases just as monolingual models do. We propose a novel benchmark, MAGBIG, intended to foster research on gender bias in multilingual models. Our results show that not only do models exhibit strong gender biases but they also behave differently across languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-29T12:02:28Z)
• On the steerability of large language models toward data-driven personas [98.9138902560793]
  Large language models (LLMs) are known to generate biased responses where the opinions of certain groups and populations are underrepresented. Here, we present a novel approach to achieve controllable generation of specific viewpoints using LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-08T19:01:13Z)
• Generative Language Models Exhibit Social Identity Biases [17.307292780517653]
  We investigate whether ingroup solidarity and outgroup hostility, fundamental social identity biases, are present in 56 large language models. We find that almost all foundational language models and some instruction fine-tuned models exhibit clear ingroup-positive and outgroup-negative associations when prompted to complete sentences. Our findings suggest that modern language models exhibit fundamental social identity biases to a similar degree as humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-24T13:17:40Z)
• Toward responsible face datasets: modeling the distribution of a disentangled latent space for sampling face images from demographic groups [0.0]
  Recently, it has been exposed that some modern facial recognition systems could discriminate specific demographic groups. We propose to use a simple method for modeling and sampling a disentangled projection of a StyleGAN latent space to generate any combination of demographic groups. Our experiments show that we can synthesis any combination of demographic groups effectively and the identities are different from the original training dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-15T14:42:04Z)
• Questioning the Survey Responses of Large Language Models [18.61486375469644]
  We critically examine language models' survey responses on the basis of the well-established American Community Survey by the U.S. Census Bureau. We find that models' responses are governed by ordering and labeling biases, leading to variations across models that do not persist after adjusting for systematic biases. Our findings suggest caution in treating models' survey responses as equivalent to those of human populations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-13T17:48:27Z)
• Exposing Bias in Online Communities through Large-Scale Language Models [3.04585143845864]
  This work uses the flaw of bias in language models to explore the biases of six different online communities. The bias of the resulting models is evaluated by prompting the models with different demographics and comparing the sentiment and toxicity values of these generations. This work not only affirms how easily bias is absorbed from training data but also presents a scalable method to identify and compare the bias of different datasets or communities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-04T08:09:26Z)
• Bridging the Gap: A Survey on Integrating (Human) Feedback for Natural Language Generation [68.9440575276396]
  This survey aims to provide an overview of the recent research that has leveraged human feedback to improve natural language generation. First, we introduce an encompassing formalization of feedback, and identify and organize existing research into a taxonomy following this formalization. Second, we discuss how feedback can be described by its format and objective, and cover the two approaches proposed to use feedback (either for training or decoding): directly using the feedback or training feedback models. Third, we provide an overview of the nascent field of AI feedback, which exploits large language models to make judgments based on a set of principles and minimize the need for
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-01T17:36:06Z)
• Out of One, Many: Using Language Models to Simulate Human Samples [3.278541277919869]
  We show that the "algorithmic bias" within one such tool -- the GPT-3 language model -- is both fine-grained and demographically correlated. We create "silicon samples" by conditioning the model on thousands of socio-demographic backstories from real human participants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-09-14T19:53:32Z)
• Language Model Evaluation Beyond Perplexity [47.268323020210175]
  We analyze whether text generated from language models exhibits the statistical tendencies present in the human-generated text on which they were trained. We find that neural language models appear to learn only a subset of the tendencies considered, but align much more closely with empirical trends than proposed theoretical distributions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-31T20:13:44Z)

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.