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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Recent advancements in Natural Language Processing (NLP) have highlighted the potential of sentence embeddings in measuring semantic similarity. Yet, its application in analyzing real-world dyadic interactions and predicting the affect of conversational participants remains largely uncharted. To bridge this gap, the present study utilizes verbal conversations within 50 married couples talking about conflicts and pleasant activities. Transformer-based model all-MiniLM-L6-v2 was employed to obtain the embeddings of the utterances from each speaker. The overall similarity of the conversation was then quantified by the average cosine similarity between the embeddings of adjacent utterances. Results showed that semantic similarity had a positive association with wives' affect during conflict (but not pleasant) conversations. Moreover, this association was not observed with husbands' affect regardless of conversation types. Two validation checks further provided support for the validity of the similarity measure and showed that the observed patterns were not mere artifacts of data. The present study underscores the potency of sentence embeddings in understanding the association between interpersonal dynamics and individual affect, paving the way for innovative applications in affective and relationship sciences.
This paper presents two self-contained tutorials on stance detection in Twitter data using BERT fine-tuning and prompting large language models (LLMs). The first tutorial explains BERT architecture and tokenization, guiding users through training, tuning, and evaluating standard and domain-specific BERT models with HuggingFace transformers. The second focuses on constructing prompts and few-shot examples to elicit stances from ChatGPT and open-source FLAN-T5 without fine-tuning. Various prompting strategies are implemented and evaluated using confusion matrices and macro F1 scores. The tutorials provide code, visualizations, and insights revealing the strengths of few-shot ChatGPT and FLAN-T5 which outperform fine-tuned BERTs. By covering both model fine-tuning and prompting-based techniques in an accessible, hands-on manner, these tutorials enable learners to gain applied experience with cutting-edge methods for stance detection.
Successful teaching requires an assumption of how the learner learns - how the learner uses experiences from the world to update their internal states. We investigate what expectations people have about a learner when they teach them in an online manner using rewards and punishment. We focus on a common reinforcement learning method, Q-learning, and examine what assumptions people have using a behavioral experiment. To do so, we first establish a normative standard, by formulating the problem as a machine teaching optimization problem. To solve the machine teaching optimization problem, we use a deep learning approximation method which simulates learners in the environment and learns to predict how feedback affects the learner's internal states. What do people assume about a learner's learning and discount rates when they teach them an idealized exploration-exploitation task? In a behavioral experiment, we find that people can teach the task to Q-learners in a relatively efficient and effective manner when the learner uses a small value for its discounting rate and a large value for its learning rate. However, they still are suboptimal. We also find that providing people with real-time updates of how possible feedback would affect the Q-learner's internal states weakly helps them teach. Our results reveal how people teach using evaluative feedback and provide guidance for how engineers should design machine agents in a manner that is intuitive for people.