Aggregation Artifacts in Subjective Tasks Collapse Large Language Models' Posteriors

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.13776v2
• Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2024 18:17:41 GMT
• Title: Aggregation Artifacts in Subjective Tasks Collapse Large Language Models' Posteriors
• Authors: Georgios Chochlakis, Alexandros Potamianos, Kristina Lerman, Shrikanth Narayanan,
• Abstract summary: In-context Learning (ICL) has become the primary method for performing natural language tasks with Large Language Models (LLMs) In this work, we examine whether this is the result of the aggregation used in corresponding datasets, where trying to combine low-agreement, disparate annotations might lead to annotation artifacts that create detrimental noise in the prompt. Our results indicate that aggregation is a confounding factor in the modeling of subjective tasks, and advocate focusing on modeling individuals instead.
• Score: 74.04775677110179
• License:
• Abstract: In-context Learning (ICL) has become the primary method for performing natural language tasks with Large Language Models (LLMs). The knowledge acquired during pre-training is crucial for this few-shot capability, providing the model with task priors. However, recent studies have shown that ICL predominantly relies on retrieving task priors rather than "learning" to perform tasks. This limitation is particularly evident in complex subjective domains such as emotion and morality, where priors significantly influence posterior predictions. In this work, we examine whether this is the result of the aggregation used in corresponding datasets, where trying to combine low-agreement, disparate annotations might lead to annotation artifacts that create detrimental noise in the prompt. Moreover, we evaluate the posterior bias towards certain annotators by grounding our study in appropriate, quantitative measures of LLM priors. Our results indicate that aggregation is a confounding factor in the modeling of subjective tasks, and advocate focusing on modeling individuals instead. However, aggregation does not explain the entire gap between ICL and the state of the art, meaning other factors in such tasks also account for the observed phenomena. Finally, by rigorously studying annotator-level labels, we find that it is possible for minority annotators to both better align with LLMs and have their perspectives further amplified.

Related papers

• LLMs are Biased Evaluators But Not Biased for Retrieval Augmented Generation [28.61326111959728]
  Large language models (LLMs) exhibit significant biases in evaluation tasks, particularly in preferentially rating and favoring self-generated content. Our study addresses this knowledge gap by simulating two critical phases of the retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) framework. Contrary to previous findings, our results reveal no significant self-preference effect in RAG frameworks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-28T08:32:09Z)
• Large Language Models are Biased Reinforcement Learners [0.0]
  We show that large language models (LLMs) exhibit behavioral signatures of a relative value bias. Computational cognitive modeling reveals that LLM behavior is well-described by a simple RL algorithm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-19T01:43:52Z)
• The Strong Pull of Prior Knowledge in Large Language Models and Its Impact on Emotion Recognition [74.04775677110179]
  In-context Learning (ICL) has emerged as a powerful paradigm for performing natural language tasks with Large Language Models (LLM) We show that LLMs have strong yet inconsistent priors in emotion recognition that ossify their predictions. Our results suggest that caution is needed when using ICL with larger LLMs for affect-centered tasks outside their pre-training domain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-25T19:07:32Z)
• Unveiling the Generalization Power of Fine-Tuned Large Language Models [81.70754292058258]
  We investigate whether fine-tuning affects the intrinsic generalization ability intrinsic to Large Language Models (LLMs) Our main findings reveal that models fine-tuned on generation and classification tasks exhibit dissimilar behaviors in generalizing to different domains and tasks. We observe that integrating the in-context learning strategy during fine-tuning on generation tasks can enhance the model's generalization ability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-14T08:18:59Z)
• C-ICL: Contrastive In-context Learning for Information Extraction [54.39470114243744]
  c-ICL is a novel few-shot technique that leverages both correct and incorrect sample constructions to create in-context learning demonstrations. Our experiments on various datasets indicate that c-ICL outperforms previous few-shot in-context learning methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-17T11:28:08Z)
• Low-shot Object Learning with Mutual Exclusivity Bias [27.67152913041082]
  This paper introduces Low-shot Object Learning with Mutual Exclusivity Bias (LSME), the first computational framing of mutual exclusivity bias. We provide a novel dataset, comprehensive baselines, and a state-of-the-art method to enable the ML community to tackle this challenging learning task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-06T14:54:10Z)
• Post Hoc Explanations of Language Models Can Improve Language Models [43.2109029463221]
  We present a novel framework, Amplifying Model Performance by Leveraging In-Context Learning with Post Hoc Explanations (AMPLIFY) We leverage post hoc explanation methods which output attribution scores (explanations) capturing the influence of each of the input features on model predictions. Our framework, AMPLIFY, leads to prediction accuracy improvements of about 10-25% over a wide range of tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-19T04:46:04Z)
• Masked Language Modeling and the Distributional Hypothesis: Order Word Matters Pre-training for Little [74.49773960145681]
  A possible explanation for the impressive performance of masked language model (MLM)-training is that such models have learned to represent the syntactic structures prevalent in NLP pipelines. In this paper, we propose a different explanation: pre-trains succeed on downstream tasks almost entirely due to their ability to model higher-order word co-occurrence statistics. Our results show that purely distributional information largely explains the success of pre-training, and underscore the importance of curating challenging evaluation datasets that require deeper linguistic knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-14T06:30:36Z)
• oLMpics -- On what Language Model Pre-training Captures [84.60594612120173]
  We propose eight reasoning tasks, which require operations such as comparison, conjunction, and composition. A fundamental challenge is to understand whether the performance of a LM on a task should be attributed to the pre-trained representations or to the process of fine-tuning on the task data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2019-12-31T12:11:35Z)

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.