Leveraging Large Language Models for Predictive Analysis of Human Misery

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.12669v1
• Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2025 07:02:59 GMT
• Title: Leveraging Large Language Models for Predictive Analysis of Human Misery
• Authors: Bishanka Seal, Rahul Seetharaman, Aman Bansal, Abhilash Nandy,
• Abstract summary: This study investigates the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) for predicting human-perceived misery scores.<n>We evaluate multiple prompting strategies, including zero-shot, fixed-context few-shot, and retrieval-based prompting.<n>To move beyond static evaluation, we introduce the "Misery Game Show", a novel gamified framework inspired by a television format.
• Score: 1.2458057399345226
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: This study investigates the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) for predicting human-perceived misery scores from natural language descriptions of real-world scenarios. The task is framed as a regression problem, where the model assigns a scalar value from 0 to 100 to each input statement. We evaluate multiple prompting strategies, including zero-shot, fixed-context few-shot, and retrieval-based prompting using BERT sentence embeddings. Few-shot approaches consistently outperform zero-shot baselines, underscoring the value of contextual examples in affective prediction. To move beyond static evaluation, we introduce the "Misery Game Show", a novel gamified framework inspired by a television format. It tests LLMs through structured rounds involving ordinal comparison, binary classification, scalar estimation, and feedback-driven reasoning. This setup enables us to assess not only predictive accuracy but also the model's ability to adapt based on corrective feedback. The gamified evaluation highlights the broader potential of LLMs in dynamic emotional reasoning tasks beyond standard regression. Code and data link: https://github.com/abhi1nandy2/Misery_Data_Exps_GitHub

Related papers

• Look Before you Leap: Estimating LLM Benchmark Scores from Descriptions [35.48753431700434]
  We study text-only performance forecasting, estimating a model's score from a redacted task description and intended configuration.<n>To support systematic study, we curate PRECOG, a corpus of redacted description-performance pairs spanning diverse tasks, domains, and metrics.<n>Experiments show the task is challenging but feasible, reaching mean absolute error as low as 8.7 on the Accuracy subset at high-confidence thresholds.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T01:02:27Z)
• Revisiting LLM Value Probing Strategies: Are They Robust and Expressive? [81.49470136653665]
  We evaluate the robustness and expressiveness of value representations across three widely used probing strategies.<n>We show that the demographic context has little effect on the free-text generation, and the models' values only weakly correlate with their preference for value-based actions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-17T18:56:41Z)
• Counterfactual reasoning: an analysis of in-context emergence [49.58529868457226]
  Large-scale neural language models (LMs) exhibit remarkable performance in in-context learning.<n>This work studies in-context counterfactual reasoning in language models, that is, to predict the consequences of changes under hypothetical scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T16:02:07Z)
• SPARC: Score Prompting and Adaptive Fusion for Zero-Shot Multi-Label Recognition in Vision-Language Models [74.40683913645731]
  Zero-shot multi-label recognition (MLR) with Vision-Language Models (VLMs) faces significant challenges without training data, model tuning, or architectural modifications.<n>Our work proposes a novel solution treating VLMs as black boxes, leveraging scores without training data or ground truth.<n>Analysis of these prompt scores reveals VLM biases and AND''/OR' signal ambiguities, notably that maximum scores are surprisingly suboptimal compared to second-highest scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-24T07:15:05Z)
• An Analysis and Mitigation of the Reversal Curse [70.13419502543915]
  Recent research observed a noteworthy phenomenon in large language models (LLMs) The reversal curse is that when dealing with two entities, $a$ and $b$, LLMs excel in handling sequences in the form of $aRb$,'' but encounter challenges when processing $bR-1a$''
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-13T17:01:12Z)
• Bring Your Own Data! Self-Supervised Evaluation for Large Language Models [52.15056231665816]
  We propose a framework for self-supervised evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) We demonstrate self-supervised evaluation strategies for measuring closed-book knowledge, toxicity, and long-range context dependence. We find strong correlations between self-supervised and human-supervised evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-23T17:59:09Z)
• Short Answer Grading Using One-shot Prompting and Text Similarity Scoring Model [2.14986347364539]
  We developed an automated short answer grading model that provided both analytic scores and holistic scores. The accuracy and quadratic weighted kappa of our model were 0.67 and 0.71 on a subset of the publicly available ASAG dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-29T22:05:29Z)
• Using Natural Language Explanations to Rescale Human Judgments [81.66697572357477]
  We propose a method to rescale ordinal annotations and explanations using large language models (LLMs)<n>We feed annotators' Likert ratings and corresponding explanations into an LLM and prompt it to produce a numeric score anchored in a scoring rubric.<n>Our method rescales the raw judgments without impacting agreement and brings the scores closer to human judgments grounded in the same scoring rubric.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T06:19:14Z)
• Training Language Models with Language Feedback at Scale [50.70091340506957]
  We introduce learning from Language Feedback (ILF), a new approach that utilizes more informative language feedback. ILF consists of three steps that are applied iteratively: first, conditioning the language model on the input, an initial LM output, and feedback to generate refinements. We show theoretically that ILF can be viewed as Bayesian Inference, similar to Reinforcement Learning from human feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-28T17:04:15Z)
• Language Models in the Loop: Incorporating Prompting into Weak Supervision [11.10422546502386]
  We propose a new strategy for applying large pre-trained language models to novel tasks when labeled training data is limited. Instead of applying the model in a typical zero-shot or few-shot fashion, we treat the model as the basis for labeling functions in a weak supervision framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-04T20:42:40Z)
• Few-shot Instruction Prompts for Pretrained Language Models to Detect Social Biases [55.45617404586874]
  We propose a few-shot instruction-based method for prompting pre-trained language models (LMs) We show that large LMs can detect different types of fine-grained biases with similar and sometimes superior accuracy to fine-tuned models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-15T04:19:52Z)
• Constructing interval variables via faceted Rasch measurement and multitask deep learning: a hate speech application [63.10266319378212]
  We propose a method for measuring complex variables on a continuous, interval spectrum by combining supervised deep learning with the Constructing Measures approach to faceted Rasch item response theory (IRT) We demonstrate this new method on a dataset of 50,000 social media comments sourced from YouTube, Twitter, and Reddit and labeled by 11,000 U.S.-based Amazon Mechanical Turk workers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-09-22T02:15:05Z)

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.