Sherry Tongshuang Wu

Lindia Tjuatja, Valerie Chen, Sherry Tongshuang Wu et al. · cmu

As large language models (LLMs) become more capable, there is growing excitement about the possibility of using LLMs as proxies for humans in real-world tasks where subjective labels are desired, such as in surveys and opinion polling. One widely-cited barrier to the adoption of LLMs as proxies for humans in subjective tasks is their sensitivity to prompt wording - but interestingly, humans also display sensitivities to instruction changes in the form of response biases. We investigate the extent to which LLMs reflect human response biases, if at all. We look to survey design, where human response biases caused by changes in the wordings of "prompts" have been extensively explored in social psychology literature. Drawing from these works, 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, particularly in models that have undergone RLHF. Furthermore, even if a model shows a significant change in the same direction as humans, we find that they are sensitive to perturbations that do not elicit significant changes in humans. These results highlight the pitfalls of using LLMs as human proxies, and underscore the need for finer-grained characterizations of model behavior. Our code, dataset, and collected samples are available at https://github.com/lindiatjuatja/BiasMonkey

Xuhui Zhou, Weiwei Sun, Qianou Ma et al. · cmu

As NLP evaluation shifts from static benchmarks to multi-turn interactive settings, LLM-based simulators have become widely used as user proxies, serving two roles: generating user turns and providing evaluation signals. Yet, these simulations are frequently assumed to be faithful to real human behaviors, often without rigorous verification. We formalize the Sim2Real gap in user simulation and present the first study running the full $τ$-bench protocol with real humans (451 participants, 165 tasks), benchmarking 31 LLM simulators across proprietary, open-source, and specialized families using the User-Sim Index (USI), a metric we introduce to quantify how well LLM simulators resemble real user interactive behaviors and feedback. Behaviorally, LLM simulators are excessively cooperative, stylistically uniform, and lack realistic frustration or ambiguity, creating an "easy mode" that inflates agent success rates above the human baseline. In evaluations, real humans provide nuanced judgments across eight quality dimensions while simulated users produce uniformly more positive feedback; rule-based rewards are failing to capture rich feedback signals generated by human users. Overall, higher general model capability does not necessarily yield more faithful user simulation. These findings highlight the importance of human validation when using LLM-based user simulators in the agent development cycle and motivate improved models for user simulation.

Cheng Qian, Xinran Zhao, Sherry Tongshuang Wu · tsinghua

Large language models (LLMs) acquire extensive knowledge during pre-training, known as their parametric knowledge. However, in order to remain up-to-date and align with human instructions, LLMs inevitably require external knowledge during their interactions with users. This raises a crucial question: How will LLMs respond when external knowledge interferes with their parametric knowledge? To investigate this question, we propose a framework that systematically elicits LLM parametric knowledge and introduces external knowledge. Specifically, we uncover the impacts by constructing a parametric knowledge graph to reveal the different knowledge structures of LLMs, and introduce external knowledge through distractors of varying degrees, methods, positions, and formats. Our experiments on both black-box and open-source models demonstrate that LLMs tend to produce responses that deviate from their parametric knowledge, particularly when they encounter direct conflicts or confounding changes of information within detailed contexts. We also find that while LLMs are sensitive to the veracity of external knowledge, they can still be distracted by unrelated information. These findings highlight the risk of hallucination when integrating external knowledge, even indirectly, during interactions with current LLMs. All the data and results are publicly available.

Chenglei Si, Navita Goyal, Sherry Tongshuang Wu et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for accessing information on the web. Their truthfulness and factuality are thus of great interest. To help users make the right decisions about the information they get, LLMs should not only provide information but also help users fact-check it. Our experiments with 80 crowdworkers compare language models with search engines (information retrieval systems) at facilitating fact-checking. We prompt LLMs to validate a given claim and provide corresponding explanations. Users reading LLM explanations are significantly more efficient than those using search engines while achieving similar accuracy. However, they over-rely on the LLMs when the explanation is wrong. To reduce over-reliance on LLMs, we ask LLMs to provide contrastive information - explain both why the claim is true and false, and then we present both sides of the explanation to users. This contrastive explanation mitigates users' over-reliance on LLMs, but cannot significantly outperform search engines. Further, showing both search engine results and LLM explanations offers no complementary benefits compared to search engines alone. Taken together, our study highlights that natural language explanations by LLMs may not be a reliable replacement for reading the retrieved passages, especially in high-stakes settings where over-relying on wrong AI explanations could lead to critical consequences.

Eunsu Kim, Jessica R. Mindel, Kyungjin Kim et al.

As large language models (LLMs) increasingly shape how users form, refine, and extend their goals, attributing contributions in human-AI collaboration becomes critical for users calibrating their own reliance and for evaluators assessing AI-assisted work. Yet existing methods focus on final artifacts, missing the process through which goals themselves are jointly shaped. We introduce a goal-level attribution framework, CoTrace, that decomposes explicit goals into verifiable requirements and traces both direct contributions and indirect influences across dialogue turns. Applying CoTrace to 638 real-world collaboration logs, we find that while models account for only 11-26% of goal-shaping contribution, they contribute substantially more on introducing lower-level concrete requirements, and make various kinds of indirect contributions. Through controlled simulations, we show that interaction design choices significantly affect model goal-shaping behavior. In a user study, exposing participants to goal-level analyses shifts their perceived contributions by nearly 2 points on a 5-point scale, revealing systematic miscalibration in how users understand their own AI-assisted work.

Lexin Zhou, Lorenzo Pacchiardi, Fernando Martínez-Plumed et al. · cambridge

Ensuring safe and effective use of AI requires understanding and anticipating its performance on novel tasks, from advanced scientific challenges to transformed workplace activities. So far, benchmarking has guided progress in AI, but it has offered limited explanatory and predictive power for general-purpose AI systems, given the low transferability across diverse tasks. In this paper, we introduce general scales for AI evaluation that can explain what common AI benchmarks really measure, extract ability profiles of AI systems, and predict their performance for new task instances, in- and out-of-distribution. Our fully-automated methodology builds on 18 newly-crafted rubrics that place instance demands on general scales that do not saturate. Illustrated for 15 large language models and 63 tasks, high explanatory power is unleashed from inspecting the demand and ability profiles, bringing insights on the sensitivity and specificity exhibited by different benchmarks, and how knowledge, metacognition and reasoning are affected by model size, chain-of-thought and distillation. Surprisingly, high predictive power at the instance level becomes possible using these demand levels, providing superior estimates over black-box baseline predictors based on embeddings or finetuning, especially in out-of-distribution settings (new tasks and new benchmarks). The scales, rubrics, battery, techniques and results presented here represent a major step for AI evaluation, underpinning the reliable deployment of AI in the years ahead. (Collaborative platform: https://kinds-of-intelligence-cfi.github.io/ADELE.)

Atharva Naik, Jessica Ruhan Yin, Anusha Kamath et al. · cmu

An advantage of Large Language Models (LLMs) is their contextualization capability - providing different responses based on student inputs like solution strategy or prior discussion, to potentially better engage students than standard feedback. We present a design and evaluation of a proof-of-concept LLM application to offer students dynamic and contextualized feedback. Specifically, we augment an Online Programming Exercise bot for a college-level Cloud Computing course with ChatGPT, which offers students contextualized reflection triggers during a collaborative query optimization task in database design. We demonstrate that LLMs can be used to generate highly situated reflection triggers that incorporate details of the collaborative discussion happening in context. We discuss in depth the exploration of the design space of the triggers and their correspondence with the learning objectives as well as the impact on student learning in a pilot study with 34 students.

Fengyu Cai, Tong Chen, Xinran Zhao et al.

Dense retrievers play a vital role in accessing external and specialized knowledge to augment language models (LMs). Training dense retrievers typically requires annotated query-document pairs, which are costly to create and scarce in specialized domains (e.g., code) or in complex settings (e.g., requiring reasoning). These practical challenges have sparked growing interest in self-supervised retriever learning. Since LMs are trained to capture token-level dependencies through a self-supervised learning objective (i.e., next token prediction), we can analogously cast retrieval as learning dependencies among chunks of tokens. This analogy naturally leads to the question: How can we adapt self-supervised learning objectives in the spirit of language modeling to train retrievers? To answer this question, we introduce Revela, a unified and scalable training framework for self-supervised retriever learning via language modeling. Revela models semantic dependencies among documents by conditioning next token prediction on local and cross-document context through an in-batch attention mechanism. This attention is weighted by retriever-computed similarity scores, enabling the retriever to be optimized as part of language modeling. We evaluate Revela on domain-specific (CoIR), reasoning-intensive (BRIGHT), and general-domain (BEIR) benchmarks across various retriever backbones. Without annotated or synthetic query-document pairs, Revela surpasses larger supervised models and proprietary APIs on CoIR and matches them on BRIGHT. It achieves BEIR's unsupervised SoTA with ~ 1000x less training data and 10x less compute. Performance increases with batch size and model size, highlighting Revela's scalability and its promise for self-supervised retriever learning.