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
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.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Can LLM "Self-report"?: Evaluating the Validity of Self-report Scales in Measuring Personality Design in LLM-based Chatbots
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.
-
Meaningless is better: hashing bias-inducing words in LLM prompts improves performance in logical reasoning and statistical learning
Masking bias-triggering words with random identifiers increased accuracy on two small LLM reasoning and counting tasks, with effects varying by model.
-
CBEval: A framework for evaluating and interpreting cognitive biases in LLMs
Frontier LLMs exhibit framing, anchoring, round-number, representativeness, and priming biases, and word-level Shapley attribution can localize the words that drive those biases.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.