Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Will the Real Linda Please Stand up...to Large Language Models? Examining the Representativeness Heuristic in LLMs

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 2404.01461 v4 pith:LNWVMTIF submitted 2024-04-01 cs.CL cs.HC

classification cs.CLcs.HC
keywords representativenessheuristicllmsbiasesmodelreasoningcognitivecommon
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Although large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable proficiency in modeling text and generating human-like text, they may exhibit biases acquired from training data in doing so. Specifically, LLMs may be susceptible to a common cognitive trap in human decision-making called the representativeness heuristic. This is a concept in psychology that refers to judging the likelihood of an event based on how closely it resembles a well-known prototype or typical example, versus considering broader facts or statistical evidence. This research investigates the impact of the representativeness heuristic on LLM reasoning. We created ReHeAT (Representativeness Heuristic AI Testing), a dataset containing a series of problems spanning six common types of representativeness heuristics. Experiments reveal that four LLMs applied to ReHeAT all exhibited representativeness heuristic biases. We further identify that the model's reasoning steps are often incorrectly based on a stereotype rather than on the problem's description. Interestingly, the performance improves when adding a hint in the prompt to remind the model to use its knowledge. This suggests the uniqueness of the representativeness heuristic compared to traditional biases. It can occur even when LLMs possess the correct knowledge while falling into a cognitive trap. This highlights the importance of future research focusing on the representativeness heuristic in model reasoning and decision-making and on developing solutions to address it.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Can LLM "Self-report"?: Evaluating the Validity of Self-report Scales in Measuring Personality Design in LLM-based Chatbots

    cs.HC 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Chatbot self-report personality scores correlate only weakly with human-perceived personality and interaction quality across 500 GPT-4o chatbots, undermining the validity of self-report scales in this context.

  2. Meaningless is better: hashing bias-inducing words in LLM prompts improves performance in logical reasoning and statistical learning

    cs.CL 2024-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Masking bias-triggering words with random identifiers increased accuracy on two small LLM reasoning and counting tasks, with effects varying by model.

  3. CBEval: A framework for evaluating and interpreting cognitive biases in LLMs

    cs.CL 2024-12 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    Frontier LLMs exhibit framing, anchoring, round-number, representativeness, and priming biases, and word-level Shapley attribution can localize the words that drive those biases.

Pith tools