Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Can Large Language Models Capture Dissenting Human Voices?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2305.13788 v2 pith:FDOKHPTL submitted 2023-05-23 cs.CL cs.AI

Can Large Language Models Capture Dissenting Human Voices?

classification cs.CL cs.AI
keywords humandistributionlanguagellmsdisagreementabilityalignmentbeen
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive achievements in solving a broad range of tasks. Augmented by instruction fine-tuning, LLMs have also been shown to generalize in zero-shot settings as well. However, whether LLMs closely align with the human disagreement distribution has not been well-studied, especially within the scope of natural language inference (NLI). In this paper, we evaluate the performance and alignment of LLM distribution with humans using two different techniques to estimate the multinomial distribution: Monte Carlo Estimation (MCE) and Log Probability Estimation (LPE). As a result, we show LLMs exhibit limited ability in solving NLI tasks and simultaneously fail to capture human disagreement distribution. The inference and human alignment performances plunge even further on data samples with high human disagreement levels, raising concerns about their natural language understanding (NLU) ability and their representativeness to a larger human population. The source code for the experiments is available at https://github.com/xfactlab/emnlp2023-LLM-Disagreement

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Quantifying and Predicting Disagreement in Graded Human Ratings

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Annotation disagreement on toxic language can be moderately predicted from textual features, with high-opposition items proving harder for models to estimate accurately.

  2. Modeling Human Perspectives with Socio-Demographic Representations

    cs.CL 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Socio-Contrastive Learning jointly learns socio-demographic representations and textual features via contrastive objectives to predict annotator perspectives more accurately than concatenation baselines.