Chuanyang Jin

Chuanyang Jin, Songyang Zhang, Tianmin Shu et al.

The prevalent use of Large Language Models (LLMs) has necessitated studying their mental models, yielding noteworthy theoretical and practical implications. Current research has demonstrated that state-of-the-art LLMs, such as ChatGPT, exhibit certain theory of mind capabilities and possess relatively stable Big Five and/or MBTI personality traits. In addition, cognitive process features form an essential component of these mental models. Research in cultural psychology indicated significant differences in the cognitive processes of Eastern and Western people when processing information and making judgments. While Westerners predominantly exhibit analytical thinking that isolates things from their environment to analyze their nature independently, Easterners often showcase holistic thinking, emphasizing relationships and adopting a global viewpoint. In our research, we probed the cultural cognitive traits of ChatGPT. We employed two scales that directly measure the cognitive process: the Analysis-Holism Scale (AHS) and the Triadic Categorization Task (TCT). Additionally, we used two scales that investigate the value differences shaped by cultural thinking: the Dialectical Self Scale (DSS) and the Self-construal Scale (SCS). In cognitive process tests (AHS/TCT), ChatGPT consistently tends towards Eastern holistic thinking, but regarding value judgments (DSS/SCS), ChatGPT does not significantly lean towards the East or the West. We suggest that the result could be attributed to both the training paradigm and the training data in LLM development. We discuss the potential value of this finding for AI research and directions for future research.

Vishakh Padmakumar, Chuanyang Jin, Hannah Rose Kirk et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed via public-facing interfaces to interact with millions of users, each with diverse preferences. Despite this, preference tuning of LLMs predominantly relies on reward models trained using binary judgments where annotators select the preferred choice out of pairs of model outputs. In this work, we argue that this reliance on binary choices does not capture the broader, aggregate preferences of the target user in real-world tasks. We propose a taxonomy that identifies two dimensions of subjectivity where different users disagree on the preferred output-namely, the Plurality of Responses to Prompts, where prompts allow for multiple correct answers, and the Indistinguishability of Responses, where candidate outputs are paraphrases of each other. We show that reward models correlate weakly with user preferences in these cases. As a first step to address this issue, we introduce a simple yet effective method that augments existing binary preference datasets with synthetic preference judgments to estimate potential user disagreement. Incorporating these via a margin term as a form of regularization during model training yields predictions that better align with the aggregate user preferences.