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

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.