Alignment Between the Decision-Making Logic of LLMs and Human Cognition: A Case Study on Legal LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.09083v1
• Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2024 08:33:39 GMT
• Title: Alignment Between the Decision-Making Logic of LLMs and Human Cognition: A Case Study on Legal LLMs
• Authors: Lu Chen, Yuxuan Huang, Yixing Li, Yaohui Jin, Shuai Zhao, Zilong Zheng, Quanshi Zhang,
• Abstract summary: This paper presents a method to evaluate the alignment between the decision-making logic of Large Language Models and human cognition. We quantify the interactions encoded by the LLM as primitive decision-making logic. Experiments show that even when the language generation results appear correct, a significant portion of the internal inference logic contains notable issues.
• Score: 43.67312098562139
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: This paper presents a method to evaluate the alignment between the decision-making logic of Large Language Models (LLMs) and human cognition in a case study on legal LLMs. Unlike traditional evaluations on language generation results, we propose to evaluate the correctness of the detailed decision-making logic of an LLM behind its seemingly correct outputs, which represents the core challenge for an LLM to earn human trust. To this end, we quantify the interactions encoded by the LLM as primitive decision-making logic, because recent theoretical achievements have proven several mathematical guarantees of the faithfulness of the interaction-based explanation. We design a set of metrics to evaluate the detailed decision-making logic of LLMs. Experiments show that even when the language generation results appear correct, a significant portion of the internal inference logic contains notable issues.

Related papers

• Aligning with Logic: Measuring, Evaluating and Improving Logical Consistency in Large Language Models [31.558429029429863]
  We study logical consistency of Large Language Models (LLMs) as a prerequisite for more reliable and trustworthy systems. We first propose a universal framework to quantify the logical consistency via three fundamental proxies: transitivity, commutativity and negation invariance. We then evaluate logical consistency, using the defined measures, of a wide range of LLMs, demonstrating that it can serve as a strong proxy for overall robustness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T04:34:04Z)
• Proof of Thought : Neurosymbolic Program Synthesis allows Robust and Interpretable Reasoning [1.3003982724617653]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized natural language processing, yet they struggle with inconsistent reasoning. This research introduces Proof of Thought, a framework that enhances the reliability and transparency of LLM outputs. Key contributions include a robust type system with sort management for enhanced logical integrity, explicit representation of rules for clear distinction between factual and inferential knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-25T18:35:45Z)
• Logic-Enhanced Language Model Agents for Trustworthy Social Simulations [3.5083201638203154]
  This study focuses on decision-making in game-theoretic scenarios as a model of human interaction. We introduce the Logic-Enhanced Language Model Agents (LELMA) framework, a novel approach to enhance the trustworthiness of social simulations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-28T18:25:35Z)
• 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)
• Argumentative Large Language Models for Explainable and Contestable Decision-Making [13.045050015831903]
  Large language models (LLMs) are a promising candidate for use in decision-making. They are limited by their inability to reliably provide outputs which are explainable and contestable. We introduce argumentative LLMs, a method utilising LLMs to construct argumentation frameworks. We demonstrate the effectiveness of argumentative LLMs experimentally in the decision-making task of claim verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-03T13:12:28Z)
• LLMs for Relational Reasoning: How Far are We? [8.840750655261251]
  Large language models (LLMs) have revolutionized many areas by achieving state-of-the-art performance on downstream tasks. Recent efforts have demonstrated that the LLMs are poor at solving sequential decision-making problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-17T08:22:52Z)
• LogicAsker: Evaluating and Improving the Logical Reasoning Ability of Large Language Models [63.14196038655506]
  We introduce LogicAsker, a novel approach for evaluating and enhancing the logical reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) Our methodology reveals significant gaps in LLMs' learning of logical rules, with identified reasoning failures ranging from 29% to 90% across different models. We leverage these findings to construct targeted demonstration examples and fine-tune data, notably enhancing logical reasoning in models like GPT-4o by up to 5%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-01T13:53:53Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Exploring Self-supervised Logic-enhanced Training for Large Language Models [59.227222647741094]
  In this paper, we make the first attempt to investigate the feasibility of incorporating logical knowledge through self-supervised post-training. We devise an auto-regressive objective variant of MERIt and integrate it with two LLM series, i.e., FLAN-T5 and LLaMA, with parameter size ranging from 3 billion to 13 billion. The results on two challenging logical reasoning benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of LogicLLM.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T06:13:10Z)

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.