Evaluating Steering Techniques using Human Similarity Judgments

Current evaluations of Large Language Model (LLM) steering techniques focus on task-specific performance, overlooking how well steered representations align with human cognition. Using a well-established triadic similarity judgment task, we assessed steered LLMs on their ability to flexibly judge similarity between concepts based on size or kind. We found that prompt-based steering methods outperformed other methods both in terms of steering accuracy and model-to-human alignment. We also found LLMs were biased towards 'kind' similarity and struggled with 'size' alignment. This evaluation approach, grounded in human cognition, adds further support to the efficacy of prompt-based steering and reveals privileged representational axes in LLMs prior to steering.

AI-enhanced semantic feature norms for 786 concepts

Semantic feature norms have been foundational in the study of human conceptual knowledge, yet traditional methods face trade-offs between concept/feature coverage and verifiability of quality due to the labor-intensive nature of norming studies. Here, we introduce a novel approach that augments a dataset of human-generated feature norms with responses from large language models (LLMs) while verifying the quality of norms against reliable human judgments. We find that our AI-enhanced feature norm dataset, NOVA: Norms Optimized Via AI, shows much higher feature density and overlap among concepts while outperforming a comparable human-only norm dataset and word-embedding models in predicting people's semantic similarity judgments. Taken together, we demonstrate that human conceptual knowledge is richer than captured in previous norm datasets and show that, with proper validation, LLMs can serve as powerful tools for cognitive science research.

Bridging the Creativity Understanding Gap: Small-Scale Human Alignment Enables Expert-Level Humor Ranking in LLMs

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown significant limitations in understanding creative content, as demonstrated by Hessel et al. (2023)'s influential work on the New Yorker Cartoon Caption Contest (NYCCC). Their study exposed a substantial gap between LLMs and humans in humor comprehension, establishing that understanding and evaluating creative content is key challenge in AI development. We revisit this challenge by decomposing humor understanding into three components and systematically improve each: enhancing visual understanding through improved annotation, utilizing LLM-generated humor reasoning and explanations, and implementing targeted alignment with human preference data. Our refined approach achieves 82.4% accuracy in caption ranking, singificantly improving upon the previous 67% benchmark and matching the performance of world-renowned human experts in this domain. Notably, while attempts to mimic subgroup preferences through various persona prompts showed minimal impact, model finetuning with crowd preferences proved remarkably effective. These findings reveal that LLM limitations in creative judgment can be effectively addressed through focused alignment to specific subgroups and individuals. Lastly, we propose the position that achieving artificial general intelligence necessitates systematic collection of human preference data across creative domains. We advocate that just as human creativity is deeply influenced by individual and cultural preferences, training LLMs with diverse human preference data may be essential for developing true creative understanding.

Probing LLM World Models: Enhancing Guesstimation with Wisdom of Crowds Decoding

Guesstimation, the task of making approximate quantity estimates, is a common real-world challenge. However, it has been largely overlooked in large language models (LLMs) and vision language models (VLMs) research. We introduce a novel guesstimation dataset, MARBLES. This dataset requires one to estimate how many items (e.g., marbles) can fit into containers (e.g., a one-cup measuring cup), both with and without accompanying images. Inspired by the social science concept of the ``Wisdom of Crowds'' (WOC) - taking the median from estimates from a crowd), which has proven effective in guesstimation, we propose ``WOC decoding'' strategy for LLM guesstimation. We show that LLMs/VLMs perform well on guesstimation, suggesting that they possess some level of a "world model" necessary for guesstimation. Moreover, similar to human performance, the WOC decoding method improves LLM/VLM guesstimation accuracy. Furthermore, the inclusion of images in the multimodal condition enhances model performance. These results highlight the value of WOC decoding strategy for LLMs/VLMs and position guesstimation as a probe for evaluating LLMs/VLMs' world model. As LLMs' world model is a fundamental prerequisite for many real-world tasks, e.g., human-AI teaming, our findings have broad implications for the AI community.

Beyond Demographics: Aligning Role-playing LLM-based Agents Using Human Belief Networks

Creating human-like large language model (LLM) agents is crucial for faithful social simulation. Having LLMs role-play based on demographic information sometimes improves human likeness but often does not. This study assessed whether LLM alignment with human behavior can be improved by integrating information from empirically-derived human belief networks. Using data from a human survey, we estimated a belief network encompassing 18 topics loading on two non-overlapping latent factors. We then seeded LLM-based agents with an opinion on one topic, and assessed the alignment of its expressed opinions on remaining test topics with corresponding human data. Role-playing based on demographic information alone did not align LLM and human opinions, but seeding the agent with a single belief greatly improved alignment for topics related in the belief network, and not for topics outside the network. These results suggest a novel path for human-LLM belief alignment in work seeking to simulate and understand patterns of belief distributions in society.

The Delusional Hedge Algorithm as a Model of Human Learning from Diverse Opinions

Whereas cognitive models of learning often assume direct experience with both the features of an event and with a true label or outcome, much of everyday learning arises from hearing the opinions of others, without direct access to either the experience or the ground truth outcome. We consider how people can learn which opinions to trust in such scenarios by extending the hedge algorithm: a classic solution for learning from diverse information sources. We first introduce a semi-supervised variant we call the delusional hedge capable of learning from both supervised and unsupervised experiences. In two experiments, we examine the alignment between human judgments and predictions from the standard hedge, the delusional hedge, and a heuristic baseline model. Results indicate that humans effectively incorporate both labeled and unlabeled information in a manner consistent with the delusional hedge algorithm -- suggesting that human learners not only gauge the accuracy of information sources but also their consistency with other reliable sources. The findings advance our understanding of human learning from diverse opinions, with implications for the development of algorithms that better capture how people learn to weigh conflicting information sources.

Simulating Opinion Dynamics with Networks of LLM-based Agents

Accurately simulating human opinion dynamics is crucial for understanding a variety of societal phenomena, including polarization and the spread of misinformation. However, the agent-based models (ABMs) commonly used for such simulations lack fidelity to human behavior. We propose a new approach to simulating opinion dynamics based on populations of Large Language Models (LLMs). Our findings reveal a strong inherent bias in LLM agents towards accurate information, leading to consensus in line with scientific reality. However, this bias limits the simulation of individuals with resistant views on issues like climate change. After inducing confirmation bias through prompt engineering, we observed opinion fragmentation in line with existing agent-based research. These insights highlight the promise and limitations of LLM agents in this domain and suggest a path forward: refining LLMs with real-world discourse to better simulate the evolution of human beliefs.

Learning interactions to boost human creativity with bandits and GPT-4

This paper considers how interactions with AI algorithms can boost human creative thought. We employ a psychological task that demonstrates limits on human creativity, namely semantic feature generation: given a concept name, respondents must list as many of its features as possible. Human participants typically produce only a fraction of the features they know before getting "stuck." In experiments with humans and with a language AI (GPT-4) we contrast behavior in the standard task versus a variant in which participants can ask for algorithmically-generated hints. Algorithm choice is administered by a multi-armed bandit whose reward indicates whether the hint helped generating more features. Humans and the AI show similar benefits from hints, and remarkably, bandits learning from AI responses prefer the same prompting strategy as those learning from human behavior. The results suggest that strategies for boosting human creativity via computer interactions can be learned by bandits run on groups of simulated participants.

Evaluating LLM Agent Group Dynamics against Human Group Dynamics: A Case Study on Wisdom of Partisan Crowds

This study investigates the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs) to simulate human group dynamics, particularly within politically charged contexts. We replicate the Wisdom of Partisan Crowds phenomenon using LLMs to role-play as Democrat and Republican personas, engaging in a structured interaction akin to human group study. Our approach evaluates how agents' responses evolve through social influence. Our key findings indicate that LLM agents role-playing detailed personas and without Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning closely align with human behaviors, while having CoT reasoning hurts the alignment. However, incorporating explicit biases into agent prompts does not necessarily enhance the wisdom of partisan crowds. Moreover, fine-tuning LLMs with human data shows promise in achieving human-like behavior but poses a risk of overfitting certain behaviors. These findings show the potential and limitations of using LLM agents in modeling human group phenomena.

Evolving Domain Adaptation of Pretrained Language Models for Text Classification

Adapting pre-trained language models (PLMs) for time-series text classification amidst evolving domain shifts (EDS) is critical for maintaining accuracy in applications like stance detection. This study benchmarks the effectiveness of evolving domain adaptation (EDA) strategies, notably self-training, domain-adversarial training, and domain-adaptive pretraining, with a focus on an incremental self-training method. Our analysis across various datasets reveals that this incremental method excels at adapting PLMs to EDS, outperforming traditional domain adaptation techniques. These findings highlight the importance of continually updating PLMs to ensure their effectiveness in real-world applications, paving the way for future research into PLM robustness against the natural temporal evolution of language.