Persuasiveness of Generated Free-Text Rationales in Subjective Decisions: A Case Study on Pairwise Argument Ranking

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.13905v1
• Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 00:28:33 GMT
• Title: Persuasiveness of Generated Free-Text Rationales in Subjective Decisions: A Case Study on Pairwise Argument Ranking
• Authors: Mohamed Elaraby, Diane Litman, Xiang Lorraine Li, Ahmed Magooda,
• Abstract summary: We analyze generated free-text rationales in tasks with subjective answers. We focus on pairwise argument ranking, a highly subjective task with significant potential for real-world applications. Our findings suggest that open-source LLMs, particularly Llama2-70B-chat, are capable of providing highly persuasive rationalizations.
• Score: 4.1017420444369215
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Generating free-text rationales is among the emergent capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs). These rationales have been found to enhance LLM performance across various NLP tasks. Recently, there has been growing interest in using these rationales to provide insights for various important downstream tasks. In this paper, we analyze generated free-text rationales in tasks with subjective answers, emphasizing the importance of rationalization in such scenarios. We focus on pairwise argument ranking, a highly subjective task with significant potential for real-world applications, such as debate assistance. We evaluate the persuasiveness of rationales generated by nine LLMs to support their subjective choices. Our findings suggest that open-source LLMs, particularly Llama2-70B-chat, are capable of providing highly persuasive rationalizations, surpassing even GPT models. Additionally, our experiments show that rationale persuasiveness can be improved by controlling its parameters through prompting or through self-refinement.

Related papers

• Improving Causal Reasoning in Large Language Models: A Survey [16.55801836321059]
  Causal reasoning is a crucial aspect of intelligence, essential for problem-solving, decision-making, and understanding the world. Large language models (LLMs) can generate rationales for their outputs, but their ability to reliably perform causal reasoning remains uncertain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-22T04:18:19Z)
• Evaluating Interventional Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models [58.52919374786108]
  Large language models (LLMs) can estimate causal effects under interventions on different parts of a system. We conduct empirical analyses to evaluate whether LLMs can accurately update their knowledge of a data-generating process in response to an intervention. We create benchmarks that span diverse causal graphs (e.g., confounding, mediation) and variable types, and enable a study of intervention-based reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-08T14:15:56Z)
• Argument Quality Assessment in the Age of Instruction-Following Large Language Models [45.832808321166844]
  A critical task in any such application is the assessment of an argument's quality. We identify the diversity of quality notions and the subjectiveness of their perception as the main hurdles towards substantial progress on argument quality assessment. We argue that the capabilities of instruction-following large language models (LLMs) to leverage knowledge across contexts enable a much more reliable assessment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-24T10:43:21Z)
• Comparing Rationality Between Large Language Models and Humans: Insights and Open Questions [6.201550639431176]
  This paper focuses on the burgeoning prominence of large language models (LLMs) We underscore the pivotal role of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) in augmenting LLMs' rationality and decision-making prowess.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-14T18:36:04Z)
• Reasoning in Conversation: Solving Subjective Tasks through Dialogue Simulation for Large Language Models [56.93074140619464]
  We propose RiC (Reasoning in Conversation), a method that focuses on solving subjective tasks through dialogue simulation. The motivation of RiC is to mine useful contextual information by simulating dialogues instead of supplying chain-of-thought style rationales. We evaluate both API-based and open-source LLMs including GPT-4, ChatGPT, and OpenChat across twelve tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-27T05:37:10Z)
• Comparing Inferential Strategies of Humans and Large Language Models in Deductive Reasoning [25.732397636695882]
  We show that large language models (LLMs) display reasoning patterns akin to those observed in humans. Our research demonstrates that the architecture and scale of the model significantly affect its preferred method of reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T12:58:14Z)
• A Principled Framework for Knowledge-enhanced Large Language Model [58.1536118111993]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are versatile, yet they often falter in tasks requiring deep and reliable reasoning. This paper introduces a rigorously designed framework for creating LLMs that effectively anchor knowledge and employ a closed-loop reasoning process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-18T18:10:02Z)
• Exploring the Potential of Large Language Models in Computational Argumentation [54.85665903448207]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in understanding context and generating natural language. This work aims to embark on an assessment of LLMs, such as ChatGPT, Flan models, and LLaMA2 models, in both zero-shot and few-shot settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T15:12:15Z)
• Characterizing Large Language Models as Rationalizers of Knowledge-intensive Tasks [6.51301154858045]
  Large language models (LLMs) are proficient at generating fluent text with minimal task-specific supervision. We consider the task of generating knowledge-guided rationalization in natural language by using expert-written examples in a few-shot manner. Surprisingly, crowd-workers preferred knowledge-grounded rationales over crowdsourced rationalizations, citing their factuality, sufficiency, and comprehensive refutations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-09T01:04:44Z)
• From Heuristic to Analytic: Cognitively Motivated Strategies for Coherent Physical Commonsense Reasoning [66.98861219674039]
  Heuristic-Analytic Reasoning (HAR) strategies drastically improve the coherence of rationalizations for model decisions. Our findings suggest that human-like reasoning strategies can effectively improve the coherence and reliability of PLM reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-24T19:46:04Z)
• Towards LogiGLUE: A Brief Survey and A Benchmark for Analyzing Logical Reasoning Capabilities of Language Models [56.34029644009297]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated the ability to overcome various limitations of formal Knowledge Representation (KR) systems. LLMs excel most in abductive reasoning, followed by deductive reasoning, while they are least effective at inductive reasoning. We study single-task training, multi-task training, and "chain-of-thought" knowledge distillation fine-tuning technique to assess the performance of model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-02T01:00:50Z)

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.