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
Can Large Language Models Capture Dissenting Human Voices?
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
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Quantifying and Predicting Disagreement in Graded Human Ratings
Annotation disagreement on toxic language can be moderately predicted from textual features, with high-opposition items proving harder for models to estimate accurately.
-
Modeling Human Perspectives with Socio-Demographic Representations
Socio-Contrastive Learning jointly learns socio-demographic representations and textual features via contrastive objectives to predict annotator perspectives more accurately than concatenation baselines.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.