Not All Bias is Bad: Balancing Rational Deviations and Cognitive Biases in Large Language Model Reasoning
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.10999v1
- Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 16:25:22 GMT
- Title: Not All Bias is Bad: Balancing Rational Deviations and Cognitive Biases in Large Language Model Reasoning
- Authors: Liman Wang, Hanyang Zhong,
- Abstract summary: This paper investigates the nuanced role of biases in the decision-making processes of large language models (LLMs)
By examining rational deviations, we highlight their potential benefits when properly balanced.
We introduce the concepts of moderation and an abstention option, allowing LLMs to abstain from answering when uncertain.
- Score: 0.0
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: This paper investigates the nuanced role of biases in the decision-making processes of large language models (LLMs). While conventional research typically aims to eliminate all biases, our study reveals that not all biases are detrimental. By examining rational deviations, involving heuristic shortcuts that enhance decision-making efficiency, we highlight their potential benefits when properly balanced. We introduce the concepts of heuristic moderation and an abstention option, allowing LLMs to abstain from answering when uncertain, thereby reducing error rates and improving decision accuracy. Using our newly developed BRD (Balance Rational Deviations) dataset, our findings demonstrate that appropriately scaled bias inspection enhances model performance and aligns LLM decision-making more closely with human reasoning. This balance improves the reliability and trustworthiness of LLMs and suggests new strategies for future enhancements. Our work offers a fresh perspective on leveraging biases constructively to enhance the practical applications of LLMs, from conversational agents to decision support systems and beyond.
Related papers
- Towards Understanding Task-agnostic Debiasing Through the Lenses of Intrinsic Bias and Forgetfulness [10.081447621656523]
The impact on language modeling ability can be alleviated given a high-quality and long-contextualized debiasing corpus.
The effectiveness of task-agnostic debiasing hinges on the quantitative bias level of both the task-specific data used for downstream applications and the debiased model.
We propose a novel framework which can Propagate Socially-fair Debiasing to Downstream Fine-tuning, ProSocialTuning.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-06T15:11:11Z) - Towards detecting unanticipated bias in Large Language Models [1.4589372436314496]
Large Language Models (LLMs) have exhibited fairness issues similar to those in previous machine learning systems.
This research focuses on analyzing and quantifying these biases in training data and their impact on the decisions of these models.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-04-03T11:25:20Z) - 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) - Cognitive Bias in High-Stakes Decision-Making with LLMs [19.87475562475802]
We develop a framework designed to uncover, evaluate, and mitigate cognitive bias in large language models (LLMs)
Inspired by prior research in psychology and cognitive science, we develop a dataset containing 16,800 prompts to evaluate different cognitive biases.
We test various bias mitigation strategies, amidst proposing a novel method utilising LLMs to debias their own prompts.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-25T02:35:56Z) - GPTBIAS: A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluating Bias in Large Language
Models [83.30078426829627]
Large language models (LLMs) have gained popularity and are being widely adopted by a large user community.
The existing evaluation methods have many constraints, and their results exhibit a limited degree of interpretability.
We propose a bias evaluation framework named GPTBIAS that leverages the high performance of LLMs to assess bias in models.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-12-11T12:02:14Z) - 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) - 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) - Gaining Wisdom from Setbacks: Aligning Large Language Models via Mistake
Analysis [127.85293480405082]
The rapid development of large language models (LLMs) has not only provided numerous opportunities but also presented significant challenges.
Existing alignment methods usually direct LLMs toward the favorable outcomes by utilizing human-annotated, flawless instruction-response pairs.
This study proposes a novel alignment technique based on mistake analysis, which deliberately exposes LLMs to erroneous content to learn the reasons for mistakes and how to avoid them.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-16T14:59:10Z) - Delving into Identify-Emphasize Paradigm for Combating Unknown Bias [52.76758938921129]
We propose an effective bias-conflicting scoring method (ECS) to boost the identification accuracy.
We also propose gradient alignment (GA) to balance the contributions of the mined bias-aligned and bias-conflicting samples.
Experiments are conducted on multiple datasets in various settings, demonstrating that the proposed solution can mitigate the impact of unknown biases.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-02-22T14:50:24Z) - Fairness and Explainability: Bridging the Gap Towards Fair Model
Explanations [12.248793742165278]
We bridge the gap between fairness and explainability by presenting a novel perspective of procedure-oriented fairness based on explanations.
We propose a Comprehensive Fairness Algorithm (CFA), which simultaneously fulfills multiple objectives - improving traditional fairness, satisfying explanation fairness, and maintaining the utility performance.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-12-07T18:35:54Z) - Beyond Individualized Recourse: Interpretable and Interactive Summaries
of Actionable Recourses [14.626432428431594]
We propose a novel model framework called Actionable Recourse agnostic (AReS) to construct global counterfactual explanations.
We formulate a novel objective which simultaneously optimize for correctness of the recourses and interpretability of the explanations.
Our framework can provide decision makers with a comprehensive overview of recourses corresponding to any black box model.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2020-09-15T15:14:08Z)
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.