CBEval: A framework for evaluating and interpreting cognitive biases in LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.03605v1
• Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2024 05:53:28 GMT
• Title: CBEval: A framework for evaluating and interpreting cognitive biases in LLMs
• Authors: Ammar Shaikh, Raj Abhijit Dandekar, Sreedath Panat, Rajat Dandekar,
• Abstract summary: Large Language models exhibit notable gaps in their cognitive processes. As reflections of human-generated data, these models have the potential to inherit cognitive biases.
• Score: 1.4633779950109127
• License:
• Abstract: Rapid advancements in Large Language models (LLMs) has significantly enhanced their reasoning capabilities. Despite improved performance on benchmarks, LLMs exhibit notable gaps in their cognitive processes. Additionally, as reflections of human-generated data, these models have the potential to inherit cognitive biases, raising concerns about their reasoning and decision making capabilities. In this paper we present a framework to interpret, understand and provide insights into a host of cognitive biases in LLMs. Conducting our research on frontier language models we're able to elucidate reasoning limitations and biases, and provide reasoning behind these biases by constructing influence graphs that identify phrases and words most responsible for biases manifested in LLMs. We further investigate biases such as round number bias and cognitive bias barrier revealed when noting framing effect in language models.

Related papers

• Bias in Large Language Models: Origin, Evaluation, and Mitigation [4.606140332500086]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized natural language processing, but their susceptibility to biases poses significant challenges. This comprehensive review examines the landscape of bias in LLMs, from its origins to current mitigation strategies. Ethical and legal implications of biased LLMs are discussed, emphasizing potential harms in real-world applications such as healthcare and criminal justice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-16T23:54:53Z)
• Cognitive Biases in Large Language Models for News Recommendation [68.90354828533535]
  This paper explores the potential impact of cognitive biases on large language models (LLMs) based news recommender systems. We discuss strategies to mitigate these biases through data augmentation, prompt engineering and learning algorithms aspects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T18:42:07Z)
• 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)
• Metacognitive Myopia in Large Language Models [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit potentially harmful biases that reinforce culturally inherent stereotypes, cloud moral judgments, or amplify positive evaluations of majority groups. We propose metacognitive myopia as a cognitive-ecological framework that can account for a conglomerate of established and emerging LLM biases. Our theoretical framework posits that a lack of the two components of metacognition, monitoring and control, causes five symptoms of metacognitive myopia in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-10T14:43:57Z)
• A Peek into Token Bias: Large Language Models Are Not Yet Genuine Reasoners [58.15511660018742]
  This study introduces a hypothesis-testing framework to assess whether large language models (LLMs) possess genuine reasoning abilities. We develop carefully controlled synthetic datasets, featuring conjunction fallacy and syllogistic problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-16T19:22:53Z)
• Evaluating Interventional Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models [58.52919374786108]
  Large language models (LLMs) are used to automate decision-making tasks. In this paper, we 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. These benchmarks allow us to isolate the ability of LLMs to accurately predict changes resulting from their ability to memorize facts or find other shortcuts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-08T14:15:56Z)
• Will the Real Linda Please Stand up...to Large Language Models? Examining the Representativeness Heuristic in LLMs [7.100094213474042]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable proficiency in modeling text and generating human-like text. LLMs may be susceptible to a common cognitive trap in human decision-making called the representativeness. This research investigates the impact of the representativeness on LLM reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-01T20:15:06Z)
• 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 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)
• A Closer Look at the Self-Verification Abilities of Large Language Models in Logical Reasoning [73.77088902676306]
  We take a closer look at the self-verification abilities of large language models (LLMs) in the context of logical reasoning. Our main findings suggest that existing LLMs could struggle to identify fallacious reasoning steps accurately and may fall short of guaranteeing the validity of self-verification methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T07:13:10Z)
• 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)

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.