Cognitive Biases in Large Language Models: A Survey and Mitigation Experiments

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.00323v1
• Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2024 02:37:59 GMT
• Title: Cognitive Biases in Large Language Models: A Survey and Mitigation Experiments
• Authors: Yasuaki Sumita, Koh Takeuchi, Hisashi Kashima,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) are trained on large corpora written by humans and demonstrate high performance on various tasks. As humans are susceptible to cognitive biases, LLMs can also be influenced by these biases, leading to irrational decision-making.
• Score: 24.15688619889342
• License:
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are trained on large corpora written by humans and demonstrate high performance on various tasks. However, as humans are susceptible to cognitive biases, which can result in irrational judgments, LLMs can also be influenced by these biases, leading to irrational decision-making. For example, changing the order of options in multiple-choice questions affects the performance of LLMs due to order bias. In our research, we first conducted an extensive survey of existing studies examining LLMs' cognitive biases and their mitigation. The mitigation techniques in LLMs have the disadvantage that they are limited in the type of biases they can apply or require lengthy inputs or outputs. We then examined the effectiveness of two mitigation methods for humans, SoPro and AwaRe, when applied to LLMs, inspired by studies in crowdsourcing. To test the effectiveness of these methods, we conducted experiments on GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 to evaluate the influence of six biases on the outputs before and after applying these methods. The results demonstrate that while SoPro has little effect, AwaRe enables LLMs to mitigate the effect of these biases and make more rational responses.

Related papers

• Anchoring Bias in Large Language Models: An Experimental Study [5.229564709919574]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) like GPT-4 and Gemini have significantly advanced artificial intelligence. This study delves into anchoring bias, a cognitive bias where initial information disproportionately influences judgment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-09T15:45:03Z)
• The LLM Effect: Are Humans Truly Using LLMs, or Are They Being Influenced By Them Instead? [60.01746782465275]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown capabilities close to human performance in various analytical tasks. This paper investigates the efficiency and accuracy of LLMs in specialized tasks through a structured user study focusing on Human-LLM partnership.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-07T02:30:18Z)
• AI Can Be Cognitively Biased: An Exploratory Study on Threshold Priming in LLM-Based Batch Relevance Assessment [37.985947029716016]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown advanced understanding capabilities but may inherit human biases from their training data. We investigated whether LLMs are influenced by the threshold priming effect in relevance judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-24T12:23:15Z)
• Social Bias Evaluation for Large Language Models Requires Prompt Variations [38.91306092184724]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit considerable social biases. This paper investigates the sensitivity of LLMs when changing prompt variations. We show that LLMs have tradeoffs between performance and social bias caused by the prompts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-03T14:12:04Z)
• Large Language Models Show Human-like Social Desirability Biases in Survey Responses [12.767606361552684]
  We show that Large Language Models (LLMs) skew their scores towards the desirable ends of trait dimensions when personality evaluation is inferred. This bias exists in all tested models, including GPT-4/3.5, Claude 3, Llama 3, and PaLM-2. reverse-coding all the questions decreases bias levels but does not eliminate them, suggesting that this effect cannot be attributed to acquiescence bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-09T19:02:53Z)
• Cognitive Bias in Decision-Making with LLMs [19.87475562475802]
  Large language models (LLMs) offer significant potential as tools to support an expanding range of decision-making tasks. LLMs have been shown to inherit societal biases against protected groups, as well as be subject to bias functionally resembling cognitive bias. Our work introduces BiasBuster, a framework designed to uncover, evaluate, and mitigate cognitive bias in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-25T02:35:56Z)
• Exploring Value Biases: How LLMs Deviate Towards the Ideal [57.99044181599786]
  Large-Language-Models (LLMs) are deployed in a wide range of applications, and their response has an increasing social impact. We show that value bias is strong in LLMs across different categories, similar to the results found in human studies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-16T18:28:43Z)
• 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)
• Bias Runs Deep: Implicit Reasoning Biases in Persona-Assigned LLMs [67.51906565969227]
  We study the unintended side-effects of persona assignment on the ability of LLMs to perform basic reasoning tasks. Our study covers 24 reasoning datasets, 4 LLMs, and 19 diverse personas (e.g. an Asian person) spanning 5 socio-demographic groups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-08T18:52:17Z)
• Do LLMs exhibit human-like response biases? A case study in survey design [66.1850490474361]
  We investigate the extent to which large language models (LLMs) reflect human response biases, if at all. We design a dataset and framework to evaluate whether LLMs exhibit human-like response biases in survey questionnaires. Our comprehensive evaluation of nine models shows that popular open and commercial LLMs generally fail to reflect human-like behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-07T15:40:43Z)
• Can ChatGPT Assess Human Personalities? A General Evaluation Framework [70.90142717649785]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have produced impressive results in various areas, but their potential human-like psychology is still largely unexplored. This paper presents a generic evaluation framework for LLMs to assess human personalities based on Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) tests.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-01T06:16:14Z)

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.