Large Language Models are overconfident and amplify human bias

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.02151v2
• Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2025 15:59:01 GMT
• Title: Large Language Models are overconfident and amplify human bias
• Authors: Fengfei Sun, Ningke Li, Kailong Wang, Lorenz Goette,
• Abstract summary: We evaluate whether large language models (LLMs) inherit one of the most widespread human biases: overconfidence.<n>All five LLMs we study are overconfident: they overestimate the probability that their answer is correct between 20% and 60%.<n>Humans have accuracy similar to the more advanced LLMs, but far lower overconfidence.
• Score: 1.014221700787766
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are revolutionizing every aspect of society. They are increasingly used in problem-solving tasks to substitute human assessment and reasoning. LLMs are trained on what humans write and are thus exposed to human bias. We evaluate whether LLMs inherit one of the most widespread human biases: overconfidence. We algorithmically construct reasoning problems with known ground truths. We prompt LLMs to answer these problems and assess the confidence in their answers, closely following similar protocols in human experiments. We find that all five LLMs we study are overconfident: they overestimate the probability that their answer is correct between 20% and 60%. Humans have accuracy similar to the more advanced LLMs, but far lower overconfidence. Although humans and LLMs are similarly biased in questions which they are certain they answered correctly, a key difference emerges between them: LLM bias increases sharply relative to humans if they become less sure that their answers are correct. We also show that LLM input has ambiguous effects on human decision making: LLM input leads to an increase in the accuracy, but it more than doubles the extent of overconfidence in the answers.

Related papers

• Who Do LLMs Trust? Human Experts Matter More Than Other LLMs [4.125187280299246]
  Large language models (LLMs) increasingly operate in environments where they encounter social information such as other agents' answers, tool outputs, or human recommendations.<n>This paper investigates whether LLMs exhibit analogous patterns of influence and whether they privilege feedback from humans over feedback from other LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-14T03:03:29Z)
• Blind to the Human Touch: Overlap Bias in LLM-Based Summary Evaluation [89.52571224447111]
  Large language model (LLM) judges have often been used alongside traditional, algorithm-based metrics for tasks like summarization.<n>We provide an LLM judge bias analysis as a function of overlap with human-written responses in the domain of summarization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-07T19:39:28Z)
• Misalignment of LLM-Generated Personas with Human Perceptions in Low-Resource Settings [0.568041607842355]
  This study quantitatively compared human responses with those of eight LLM-generated social personas (e.g., Male, Female, Muslim, Political Supporter) within a low-resource environment like Bangladesh.<n>Results show human responses significantly outperform all LLMs in answering questions, and across all matrices of persona perception, with particularly large gaps in empathy and credibility.<n>It is essential to validate LLM personas against real-world human data to ensure their alignment and reliability before deploying them in social science research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-28T17:52:26Z)
• Multi-Agent Evolve: LLM Self-Improve through Co-evolution [53.00458074754831]
  Reinforcement Learning (RL) has demonstrated significant potential in enhancing the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs)<n>Recent Self-Play RL methods, inspired by the success of the paradigm in games and Go, aim to enhance LLM reasoning capabilities without human-annotated data.<n>We propose Multi-Agent Evolve (MAE), a framework that enables LLMs to self-evolve in solving diverse tasks, including mathematics, reasoning, and general knowledge Q&A.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-27T17:58:02Z)
• LLMs can implicitly learn from mistakes in-context [15.818061010632249]
  We investigate whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can learn from mistakes in mathematical reasoning tasks when explanations are not provided.<n>Surprisingly, we find that LLMs perform better, on average, when rationales are eliminated from the context.<n>This approach also substantially outperforms chain-of-thought prompting in our evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-12T16:31:21Z)
• Do Large Language Models Truly Grasp Mathematics? An Empirical Exploration From Cognitive Psychology [13.964263002704582]
  We show that, even with the use of Chains of Thought prompts, mainstream LLMs have a high error rate when solving modified CRT problems. Specifically, the average accuracy rate dropped by up to 50% compared to the original questions. This finding challenges the belief that LLMs have genuine mathematical reasoning abilities comparable to humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-19T05:01:56Z)
• Fact-and-Reflection (FaR) Improves Confidence Calibration of Large Language Models [84.94220787791389]
  We propose Fact-and-Reflection (FaR) prompting, which improves the LLM calibration in two steps. Experiments show that FaR achieves significantly better calibration; it lowers the Expected Error by 23.5%. FaR even elicits the capability of verbally expressing concerns in less confident scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-27T01:37:23Z)
• When Do LLMs Need Retrieval Augmentation? Mitigating LLMs' Overconfidence Helps Retrieval Augmentation [66.01754585188739]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have been found to have difficulty knowing they do not possess certain knowledge. Retrieval Augmentation (RA) has been extensively studied to mitigate LLMs' hallucinations. We propose several methods to enhance LLMs' perception of knowledge boundaries and show that they are effective in reducing overconfidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-18T04:57:19Z)
• Pride and Prejudice: LLM Amplifies Self-Bias in Self-Refinement [75.7148545929689]
  Large language models (LLMs) improve their performance through self-feedback on certain tasks while degrade on others. We formally define LLM's self-bias - the tendency to favor its own generation. We analyze six LLMs on translation, constrained text generation, and mathematical reasoning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-18T03:10:39Z)
• Limits of Large Language Models in Debating Humans [0.0]
  We rigorously test the limits of agents that debate using Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We found that agents can blend in and concentrate on a debate's topic better than humans, improving the productivity of all players.<n>Yet, humans perceive agents as less convincing and confident than other humans, and several behavioral metrics of humans and agents we collected deviate measurably from each other.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-06T03:24:27Z)
• Large Language Models are Geographically Biased [47.88767211956144]
  We study what Large Language Models (LLMs) know about the world we live in through the lens of geography. We show various problematic geographic biases, which we define as systemic errors in geospatial predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-05T02:32:09Z)
• What Large Language Models Know and What People Think They Know [13.939511057660013]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into decision-making processes.<n>To earn human trust, LLMs must be well calibrated so that they can accurately assess and communicate the likelihood of their predictions being correct.<n>Here we explore the calibration gap, which refers to the difference between human confidence in LLM-generated answers and the models' actual confidence, and the discrimination gap, which reflects how well humans and models can distinguish between correct and incorrect answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-24T22:21:04Z)
• Challenging the Validity of Personality Tests for Large Language Models [2.9123921488295768]
  Large language models (LLMs) behave increasingly human-like in text-based interactions. LLMs' responses to personality tests systematically deviate from human responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-09T11:54:01Z)
• 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)
• Verbosity Bias in Preference Labeling by Large Language Models [10.242500241407466]
  We examine the biases that come along with evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) We take a closer look into verbosity bias -- a bias where LLMs sometimes prefer more verbose answers even if they have similar qualities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-16T05:19:02Z)
• Gender bias and stereotypes in Large Language Models [0.6882042556551611]
  This paper investigates Large Language Models' behavior with respect to gender stereotypes. We use a simple paradigm to test the presence of gender bias, building on but differing from WinoBias. Our contributions in this paper are as follows: (a) LLMs are 3-6 times more likely to choose an occupation that stereotypically aligns with a person's gender; (b) these choices align with people's perceptions better than with the ground truth as reflected in official job statistics; (d) LLMs ignore crucial ambiguities in sentence structure 95% of the time in our study items, but when explicitly prompted, they recognize
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-28T22:32:05Z)

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.