The Potential and Challenges of Evaluating Attitudes, Opinions, and Values in Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.11096v3
• Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2024 11:57:00 GMT
• Title: The Potential and Challenges of Evaluating Attitudes, Opinions, and Values in Large Language Models
• Authors: Bolei Ma, Xinpeng Wang, Tiancheng Hu, Anna-Carolina Haensch, Michael A. Hedderich, Barbara Plank, Frauke Kreuter,
• Abstract summary: This paper provides a comprehensive overview of recent works on the evaluation of Attitudes, Opinions, Values (AOVs) in Large Language Models (LLMs) By doing so, we address the potential and challenges with respect to understanding the model, human-AI alignment, and downstream application in social sciences.
• Score: 28.743404185915697
• License:
• Abstract: Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have sparked wide interest in validating and comprehending the human-like cognitive-behavioral traits LLMs may capture and convey. These cognitive-behavioral traits include typically Attitudes, Opinions, Values (AOVs). However, measuring AOVs embedded within LLMs remains opaque, and different evaluation methods may yield different results. This has led to a lack of clarity on how different studies are related to each other and how they can be interpreted. This paper aims to bridge this gap by providing a comprehensive overview of recent works on the evaluation of AOVs in LLMs. Moreover, we survey related approaches in different stages of the evaluation pipeline in these works. By doing so, we address the potential and challenges with respect to understanding the model, human-AI alignment, and downstream application in social sciences. Finally, we provide practical insights into evaluation methods, model enhancement, and interdisciplinary collaboration, thereby contributing to the evolving landscape of evaluating AOVs in LLMs.

Related papers

• MME-Survey: A Comprehensive Survey on Evaluation of Multimodal LLMs [97.94579295913606]
  Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have garnered increased attention from both industry and academia. In the development process, evaluation is critical since it provides intuitive feedback and guidance on improving models. This work aims to offer researchers an easy grasp of how to effectively evaluate MLLMs according to different needs and to inspire better evaluation methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-22T18:59:54Z)
• Large Language Models and Cognitive Science: A Comprehensive Review of Similarities, Differences, and Challenges [12.390859712280324]
  This comprehensive review explores the intersection of Large Language Models (LLMs) and cognitive science. We analyze methods for evaluating LLMs cognitive abilities and discuss their potential as cognitive models. We assess cognitive biases and limitations of LLMs, along with proposed methods for improving their performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-04T02:30:12Z)
• From Text to Insight: Leveraging Large Language Models for Performance Evaluation in Management [6.70908766695241]
  This study explores the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs), specifically GPT-4, to enhance objectivity in organizational task performance evaluations. Our results suggest that GPT ratings are comparable to human ratings but exhibit higher consistency and reliability. Our research suggests that while LLMs are capable of extracting meaningful constructs from text-based data, their scope is currently limited to specific forms of performance evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-09T20:35:10Z)
• Decompose and Aggregate: A Step-by-Step Interpretable Evaluation Framework [75.81096662788254]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are scalable and economical evaluators. The question of how reliable these evaluators are has emerged as a crucial research question. We propose Decompose and Aggregate, which breaks down the evaluation process into different stages based on pedagogical practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T08:12:30Z)
• Comprehensive Reassessment of Large-Scale Evaluation Outcomes in LLMs: A Multifaceted Statistical Approach [64.42462708687921]
  Evaluations have revealed that factors such as scaling, training types, architectures and other factors profoundly impact the performance of LLMs. Our study embarks on a thorough re-examination of these LLMs, targeting the inadequacies in current evaluation methods. This includes the application of ANOVA, Tukey HSD tests, GAMM, and clustering technique.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-22T14:47:35Z)
• F-Eval: Assessing Fundamental Abilities with Refined Evaluation Methods [102.98899881389211]
  We propose F-Eval, a bilingual evaluation benchmark to evaluate the fundamental abilities, including expression, commonsense and logic. For reference-free subjective tasks, we devise new evaluation methods, serving as alternatives to scoring by API models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-26T13:55:32Z)
• Aligning Large Language Models with Human: A Survey [53.6014921995006]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) trained on extensive textual corpora have emerged as leading solutions for a broad array of Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks. Despite their notable performance, these models are prone to certain limitations such as misunderstanding human instructions, generating potentially biased content, or factually incorrect information. This survey presents a comprehensive overview of these alignment technologies, including the following aspects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-24T17:44:58Z)
• A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models [87.60417393701331]
  Large language models (LLMs) are gaining increasing popularity in both academia and industry. This paper focuses on three key dimensions: what to evaluate, where to evaluate, and how to evaluate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-06T16:28:35Z)
• Rethinking Model Evaluation as Narrowing the Socio-Technical Gap [34.08410116336628]
  We argue that model evaluation practices must take on a critical task to cope with the challenges and responsibilities brought by this homogenization. We urge the community to develop evaluation methods based on real-world socio-requirements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-01T00:01:43Z)

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.