Timothy T. Rogers

Siddharth Suresh, Kushin Mukherjee, Timothy T. Rogers

This study evaluates the potential of a large language model for aiding in generation of semantic feature norms - a critical tool for evaluating conceptual structure in cognitive science. Building from an existing human-generated dataset, we show that machine-verified norms capture aspects of conceptual structure beyond what is expressed in human norms alone, and better explain human judgments of semantic similarity amongst items that are distally related. The results suggest that LLMs can greatly enhance traditional methods of semantic feature norm verification, with implications for our understanding of conceptual representation in humans and machines.

Kushin Mukherjee, Siddharth Suresh, Timothy T. Rogers

Semantic feature norms, lists of features that concepts do and do not possess, have played a central role in characterizing human conceptual knowledge, but require extensive human labor. Large language models (LLMs) offer a novel avenue for the automatic generation of such feature lists, but are prone to significant error. Here, we present a new method for combining a learned model of human lexical-semantics from limited data with LLM-generated data to efficiently generate high-quality feature norms.

Yun-Shiuan Chuang, Agam Goyal, Nikunj Harlalka et al.

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 often over-simplify 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 producing accurate information, leading simulated agents to consensus in line with scientific reality. This bias limits their utility for understanding resistance to consensus views on issues like climate change. After inducing confirmation bias through prompt engineering, however, we observed opinion fragmentation in line with existing agent-based modeling and opinion dynamics 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.

Yun-Shiuan Chuang, Yi Wu, Dhruv Gupta et al.

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.

Yun-Shiuan Chuang, Siddharth Suresh, Nikunj Harlalka et al.

Human groups are able to converge on more accurate beliefs through deliberation, even in the presence of polarization and partisan bias -- a phenomenon known as the "wisdom of partisan crowds." Generated agents powered by Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to simulate human collective behavior, yet few benchmarks exist for evaluating their dynamics against the behavior of human groups. In this paper, we examine the extent to which the wisdom of partisan crowds emerges in groups of LLM-based agents that are prompted to role-play as partisan personas (e.g., Democrat or Republican). We find that they not only display human-like partisan biases, but also converge to more accurate beliefs through deliberation as humans do. We then identify several factors that interfere with convergence, including the use of chain-of-thought prompt and lack of details in personas. Conversely, fine-tuning on human data appears to enhance convergence. These findings show the potential and limitations of LLM-based agents as a model of human collective intelligence.

Ara Vartanian, Xiaoxi Sun, Yun-Shiuan Chuang et al.

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.

Kushin Mukherjee, Timothy T. Rogers, Karen B. Schloss

Concepts, both abstract and concrete, elicit a distribution of association strengths across perceptual color space, which influence aspects of visual cognition ranging from object recognition to interpretation of information visualizations. While prior work has hypothesized that color-concept associations may be learned from the cross-modal statistical structure of experience, it has been unclear whether natural environments possess such structure or, if so, whether learning systems are capable of discovering and exploiting it without strong prior constraints. We addressed these questions by investigating the ability of GPT-4, a multimodal large language model, to estimate human-like color-concept associations without any additional training. Starting with human color-concept association ratings for 71 color set spanning perceptual color space (\texttt{UW-71}) and concepts that varied in abstractness, we assessed how well association ratings generated by GPT-4 could predict human ratings. GPT-4 ratings were correlated with human ratings, with performance comparable to state-of-the-art methods for automatically estimating color-concept associations from images. Variability in GPT-4's performance across concepts could be explained by specificity of the concept's color-concept association distribution. This study suggests that high-order covariances between language and perception, as expressed in the natural environment of the internet, contain sufficient information to support learning of human-like color-concept associations, and provides an existence proof that a learning system can encode such associations without initial constraints. The work further shows that GPT-4 can be used to efficiently estimate distributions of color associations for a broad range of concepts, potentially serving as a critical tool for designing effective and intuitive information visualizations.

Kuan Lok Zhou, Jiayi Chen, Siddharth Suresh et al.

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.

Zach Studdiford, Timothy T. Rogers, Siddharth Suresh et al.

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.

Siddharth Suresh, Kushin Mukherjee, Tyler Giallanza et al.

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.

Yun-Shiuan Chuang, Sameer Narendran, Nikunj Harlalka et al.

Guesstimation -- the task of making approximate quantitative estimates about objects or events -- is a common real-world skill, yet remains underexplored in large language model (LLM) research. We introduce three guesstimation datasets: MARBLES, FUTURE, and ELECPRED, spanning physical estimation (e.g., how many marbles fit in a cup) to abstract predictions (e.g., the 2024 U.S. presidential election). Inspired by the social science concept of Wisdom of Crowds (WOC)- where the median of multiple estimates improves accuracy-we propose WOC decoding for LLMs. We replicate WOC effects in human participants and find that LLMs exhibit similar benefits: median aggregation across sampled responses consistently improves accuracy over greedy decoding, self-consistency decoding, and mean decoding. This suggests that LLMs encode a world model that supports approximate reasoning. Our results position guesstimation as a useful probe of LLM world knowledge and highlight WOC decoding as a strategy for enhancing LLM guesstimation performance on real-world tasks.

Yun-Shiuan Chuang, Ruixuan Tu, Chengtao Dai et al.

Accurately modeling opinion change through social interactions is crucial for addressing issues like misinformation and polarization. While role-playing large language models (LLMs) offer a promising way to simulate human-like interactions, existing research shows that single-agent alignment does not guarantee authentic multi-agent group dynamics. Current LLM role-play setups often produce unnatural dynamics (e.g., premature convergence), without an empirical benchmark to measure authentic human opinion trajectories. To bridge this gap, we introduce DEBATE, the first large-scale empirical benchmark explicitly designed to evaluate the authenticity of the interaction between multi-agent role-playing LLMs. DEBATE contains 29,417 messages from multi-round debate conversations among over 2,792 U.S.-based participants discussing 107 controversial topics, capturing both publicly-expressed messages and privately-reported opinions. Using DEBATE, we systematically evaluate and identify critical discrepancies between simulated and authentic group dynamics. We further demonstrate DEBATE's utility for aligning LLMs with human behavior through supervised fine-tuning, achieving improvements in surface-level metrics (e.g., ROUGE-L and message length) while highlighting limitations in deeper semantic alignment (e.g., semantic similarity). Our findings highlight both the potential and current limitations of role-playing LLM agents for realistically simulating human-like social dynamics.

Zach Studdiford, Timothy T. Rogers, Kushin Mukherjee et al.

The ability to translate diverse patterns of inputs into structured patterns of behavior has been thought to rest on both humans' and machines' ability to learn robust representations of relevant concepts. The rapid advancement of transformer-based large language models (LLMs) has led to a diversity of computational ingredients -- architectures, fine tuning methods, and training datasets among others -- but it remains unclear which of these ingredients are most crucial for building models that develop human-like representations. Further, most current LLM benchmarks are not suited to measuring representational alignment between humans and models, making benchmark scores unreliable for assessing if current LLMs are making progress towards becoming useful cognitive models. We address these limitations by first evaluating a set of over 70 models that widely vary in their computational ingredients on a triplet similarity task, a method well established in the cognitive sciences for measuring human conceptual representations, using concepts from the THINGS database. Comparing human and model representations, we find that models that undergo instruction-finetuning and which have larger dimensionality of attention heads are among the most human aligned, while multimodal pretraining and parameter size have limited bearing on alignment. Correlations between alignment scores and scores on existing benchmarks reveal that while some benchmarks (e.g., MMLU) are better suited than others (e.g., MUSR) for capturing representational alignment, no existing benchmark is capable of fully accounting for the variance of alignment scores, demonstrating their insufficiency in capturing human-AI alignment. Taken together, our findings help highlight the computational ingredients most essential for advancing LLMs towards models of human conceptual representation and address a key benchmarking gap in LLM evaluation.

Yun-Shiuan Chuang, Krirk Nirunwiroj, Zach Studdiford et al.

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 64 topics loading on nine 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.

Yun-Shiuan Chuang, Jerry Zhu, Timothy T. Rogers

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.