Will the Real Linda Please Stand up...to Large Language Models? Examining the Representativeness Heuristic in LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.01461v4
• Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 02:41:57 GMT
• Title: Will the Real Linda Please Stand up...to Large Language Models? Examining the Representativeness Heuristic in LLMs
• Authors: Pengda Wang, Zilin Xiao, Hanjie Chen, Frederick L. Oswald,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable proficiency in modeling text and generating human-like text. LLMs may be susceptible to a common cognitive trap in human decision-making called the representativeness. This research investigates the impact of the representativeness on LLM reasoning.
• Score: 7.100094213474042
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Although large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable proficiency in modeling text and generating human-like text, they may exhibit biases acquired from training data in doing so. Specifically, LLMs may be susceptible to a common cognitive trap in human decision-making called the representativeness heuristic. This is a concept in psychology that refers to judging the likelihood of an event based on how closely it resembles a well-known prototype or typical example, versus considering broader facts or statistical evidence. This research investigates the impact of the representativeness heuristic on LLM reasoning. We created ReHeAT (Representativeness Heuristic AI Testing), a dataset containing a series of problems spanning six common types of representativeness heuristics. Experiments reveal that four LLMs applied to ReHeAT all exhibited representativeness heuristic biases. We further identify that the model's reasoning steps are often incorrectly based on a stereotype rather than on the problem's description. Interestingly, the performance improves when adding a hint in the prompt to remind the model to use its knowledge. This suggests the uniqueness of the representativeness heuristic compared to traditional biases. It can occur even when LLMs possess the correct knowledge while falling into a cognitive trap. This highlights the importance of future research focusing on the representativeness heuristic in model reasoning and decision-making and on developing solutions to address it.

Related papers

• Causality for Large Language Models [37.10970529459278]
  Large language models (LLMs) with billions or trillions of parameters are trained on vast datasets, achieving unprecedented success across a series of language tasks. Recent research highlights that LLMs function as causal parrots, capable of reciting causal knowledge without truly understanding or applying it. This survey aims to explore how causality can enhance LLMs at every stage of their lifecycle.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-20T07:22:23Z)
• Towards a Holistic Evaluation of LLMs on Factual Knowledge Recall [31.45796499298925]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable performance on a variety of NLP tasks. We focus on assessing LLMs' ability to recall factual knowledge learned from pretraining. We benchmark 31 models from 10 model families and provide a holistic assessment of their strengths and weaknesses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-24T19:40:01Z)
• Cognitive Bias in Decision-Making with LLMs [19.87475562475802]
  Large language models (LLMs) offer significant potential as tools to support an expanding range of decision-making tasks. LLMs have been shown to inherit societal biases against protected groups, as well as be subject to bias functionally resembling cognitive bias. Our work introduces BiasBuster, a framework designed to uncover, evaluate, and mitigate cognitive bias in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-25T02:35:56Z)
• Self-Debiasing Large Language Models: Zero-Shot Recognition and Reduction of Stereotypes [73.12947922129261]
  We leverage the zero-shot capabilities of large language models to reduce stereotyping. We show that self-debiasing can significantly reduce the degree of stereotyping across nine different social groups. We hope this work opens inquiry into other zero-shot techniques for bias mitigation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-03T01:40:11Z)
• CLOMO: Counterfactual Logical Modification with Large Language Models [109.60793869938534]
  We introduce a novel task, Counterfactual Logical Modification (CLOMO), and a high-quality human-annotated benchmark. In this task, LLMs must adeptly alter a given argumentative text to uphold a predetermined logical relationship. We propose an innovative evaluation metric, the Self-Evaluation Score (SES), to directly evaluate the natural language output of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-29T08:29:54Z)
• The ART of LLM Refinement: Ask, Refine, and Trust [85.75059530612882]
  We propose a reasoning with refinement objective called ART: Ask, Refine, and Trust. It asks necessary questions to decide when an LLM should refine its output. It achieves a performance gain of +5 points over self-refinement baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T07:26:32Z)
• 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)
• Are Large Language Models Really Robust to Word-Level Perturbations? [68.60618778027694]
  We propose a novel rational evaluation approach that leverages pre-trained reward models as diagnostic tools. Longer conversations manifest the comprehensive grasp of language models in terms of their proficiency in understanding questions. Our results demonstrate that LLMs frequently exhibit vulnerability to word-level perturbations that are commonplace in daily language usage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-20T09:23:46Z)
• Human Behavioral Benchmarking: Numeric Magnitude Comparison Effects in Large Language Models [4.412336603162406]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) do not differentially represent numbers, which are pervasive in text. In this work, we investigate how well popular LLMs capture the magnitudes of numbers from a behavioral lens.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-18T07:50:44Z)
• Explain, Edit, and Understand: Rethinking User Study Design for Evaluating Model Explanations [97.91630330328815]
  We conduct a crowdsourcing study, where participants interact with deception detection models that have been trained to distinguish between genuine and fake hotel reviews. We observe that for a linear bag-of-words model, participants with access to the feature coefficients during training are able to cause a larger reduction in model confidence in the testing phase when compared to the no-explanation control.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-17T18:29:56Z)

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.