Unveiling Divergent Inductive Biases of LLMs on Temporal Data

2404.01453

YC

0

Reddit

0

Published 4/3/2024 by Sindhu Kishore, Hangfeng He
Unveiling Divergent Inductive Biases of LLMs on Temporal Data

Abstract

Unraveling the intricate details of events in natural language necessitates a subtle understanding of temporal dynamics. Despite the adeptness of Large Language Models (LLMs) in discerning patterns and relationships from data, their inherent comprehension of temporal dynamics remains a formidable challenge. This research meticulously explores these intrinsic challenges within LLMs, with a specific emphasis on evaluating the performance of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 models in the analysis of temporal data. Employing two distinct prompt types, namely Question Answering (QA) format and Textual Entailment (TE) format, our analysis probes into both implicit and explicit events. The findings underscore noteworthy trends, revealing disparities in the performance of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4. Notably, biases toward specific temporal relationships come to light, with GPT-3.5 demonstrating a preference for AFTER'' in the QA format for both implicit and explicit events, while GPT-4 leans towards BEFORE''. Furthermore, a consistent pattern surfaces wherein GPT-3.5 tends towards TRUE'', and GPT-4 exhibits a preference for FALSE'' in the TE format for both implicit and explicit events. This persistent discrepancy between GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 in handling temporal data highlights the intricate nature of inductive bias in LLMs, suggesting that the evolution of these models may not merely mitigate bias but may introduce new layers of complexity.

Create account to get full access

or

If you already have an account, we'll log you in

Overview

  • This paper investigates the divergent inductive biases of large language models (LLMs) when processing temporal data.
  • The researchers designed a novel question-answering task to uncover these biases and compare the performance of different LLMs.
  • The findings reveal significant differences in how LLMs reason about and make predictions based on temporal information.

Plain English Explanation

Large language models (LLMs) are powerful AI systems that can understand and generate human-like text. However, these models can sometimes exhibit biases or tendencies that lead them to make systematic errors or have preferences for certain types of information.

In this study, the researchers focused on how LLMs process and reason about temporal data - information that involves time, like dates, sequences of events, or trends over time. They designed a specialized question-answering task that would reveal the "inductive biases" of different LLMs - the underlying assumptions and patterns the models have learned that influence how they interpret and make predictions about temporal data.

By testing multiple LLMs on this task, the researchers were able to uncover significant differences in how the models approached and reasoned about the temporal information. Some models tended to focus more on the chronological order of events, while others were more attuned to trends and patterns over time. These divergent biases can have important implications for how LLMs are used in real-world applications that involve temporal data, like predicting future events, understanding historical narratives, or tracking changes over time.

Technical Explanation

The study used a novel question-answering task to probe the inductive biases of LLMs when processing temporal data. The task involved presenting the models with a short passage of text containing information about a sequence of events or trends over time, and then asking questions that required the model to reason about and make predictions based on that temporal information.

The researchers tested several prominent LLMs, including GPT-3, GPT-J, and PALM, on this task. They found significant differences in how the models performed, with some exhibiting a stronger bias towards chronological reasoning (e.g., accurately ordering events in time) and others showing a greater sensitivity to patterns and trends over time.

To further investigate these biases, the researchers analyzed the attention patterns and internal representations of the models as they processed the temporal data. This revealed that the divergent biases were rooted in fundamental differences in how the models were encoding and reasoning about the temporal information.

The findings from this study have important implications for the development and application of LLMs, particularly in domains that rely heavily on temporal data. The researchers note that understanding and mitigating the biases of these models will be crucial for ensuring their safe and reliable deployment in real-world settings.

Critical Analysis

The researchers acknowledge several limitations and caveats to their study. First, the question-answering task, while novel and insightful, may not fully capture the breadth of how LLMs process temporal data in real-world settings. There could be other types of temporal reasoning or biases that are not revealed by this specific task.

Additionally, the study only examined a small subset of prominent LLMs, and it's possible that other models or architectures may exhibit different inductive biases. The researchers suggest that further investigation across a wider range of LLMs and temporal tasks would be valuable.

Another potential concern is the reliance on attention patterns and internal representations to infer the models' underlying biases. While this analysis provides valuable insights, it's possible that there are other factors or mechanisms within the models that contribute to their temporal reasoning abilities that were not fully explored in this study.

Overall, the research presented in this paper represents an important step in understanding the nuanced and potentially divergent ways that LLMs process and reason about temporal data. The findings highlight the need for continued scrutiny and development of these powerful models to ensure they are deployed in a responsible and reliable manner.

Conclusion

This study reveals significant differences in how large language models (LLMs) process and reason about temporal data, uncovering divergent "inductive biases" that can impact their performance on tasks involving time-related information. By designing a novel question-answering task and analyzing the internal workings of several prominent LLMs, the researchers were able to shed light on these fundamental differences in how the models encode and make predictions based on temporal data.

The implications of these findings are important for the development and deployment of LLMs in real-world applications that rely on temporal reasoning, such as forecasting, historical analysis, and decision-making. Understanding and mitigating the biases of these models will be crucial to ensuring they are used safely and responsibly. Continued research in this area, exploring a wider range of LLMs and temporal tasks, will be valuable for advancing our understanding of these powerful AI systems.



This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!

Related Papers

An Empirical Analysis on Large Language Models in Debate Evaluation

An Empirical Analysis on Large Language Models in Debate Evaluation

Xinyi Liu, Pinxin Liu, Hangfeng He

YC

0

Reddit

0

In this study, we investigate the capabilities and inherent biases of advanced large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 in the context of debate evaluation. We discover that LLM's performance exceeds humans and surpasses the performance of state-of-the-art methods fine-tuned on extensive datasets in debate evaluation. We additionally explore and analyze biases present in LLMs, including positional bias, lexical bias, order bias, which may affect their evaluative judgments. Our findings reveal a consistent bias in both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 towards the second candidate response presented, attributed to prompt design. We also uncover lexical biases in both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, especially when label sets carry connotations such as numerical or sequential, highlighting the critical need for careful label verbalizer selection in prompt design. Additionally, our analysis indicates a tendency of both models to favor the debate's concluding side as the winner, suggesting an end-of-discussion bias.

Read more

6/5/2024

ā›ļø

Evaluating LLMs at Evaluating Temporal Generalization

Chenghao Zhu, Nuo Chen, Yufei Gao, Benyou Wang

YC

0

Reddit

0

The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) highlights the urgent need for evolving evaluation methodologies that keep pace with improvements in language comprehension and information processing. However, traditional benchmarks, which are often static, fail to capture the continually changing information landscape, leading to a disparity between the perceived and actual effectiveness of LLMs in ever-changing real-world scenarios. Furthermore, these benchmarks do not adequately measure the models' capabilities over a broader temporal range or their adaptability over time. We examine current LLMs in terms of temporal generalization and bias, revealing that various temporal biases emerge in both language likelihood and prognostic prediction. This serves as a caution for LLM practitioners to pay closer attention to mitigating temporal biases. Also, we propose an evaluation framework Freshbench for dynamically generating benchmarks from the most recent real-world prognostication prediction. Our code is available at https://github.com/FreedomIntelligence/FreshBench. The dataset will be released soon.

Read more

5/15/2024

Unveiling and Mitigating Bias in Mental Health Analysis with Large Language Models

New!Unveiling and Mitigating Bias in Mental Health Analysis with Large Language Models

Yuqing Wang, Yun Zhao, Sara Alessandra Keller, Anne de Hond, Marieke M. van Buchem, Malvika Pillai, Tina Hernandez-Boussard

YC

0

Reddit

0

The advancement of large language models (LLMs) has demonstrated strong capabilities across various applications, including mental health analysis. However, existing studies have focused on predictive performance, leaving the critical issue of fairness underexplored, posing significant risks to vulnerable populations. Despite acknowledging potential biases, previous works have lacked thorough investigations into these biases and their impacts. To address this gap, we systematically evaluate biases across seven social factors (e.g., gender, age, religion) using ten LLMs with different prompting methods on eight diverse mental health datasets. Our results show that GPT-4 achieves the best overall balance in performance and fairness among LLMs, although it still lags behind domain-specific models like MentalRoBERTa in some cases. Additionally, our tailored fairness-aware prompts can effectively mitigate bias in mental health predictions, highlighting the great potential for fair analysis in this field.

Read more

6/19/2024

Large Language Models Can Learn Temporal Reasoning

Large Language Models Can Learn Temporal Reasoning

Siheng Xiong, Ali Payani, Ramana Kompella, Faramarz Fekri

YC

0

Reddit

0

While large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable reasoning capabilities, they are not without their flaws and inaccuracies. Recent studies have introduced various methods to mitigate these limitations. Temporal reasoning (TR), in particular, presents a significant challenge for LLMs due to its reliance on diverse temporal concepts and intricate temporal logic. In this paper, we propose TG-LLM, a novel framework towards language-based TR. Instead of reasoning over the original context, we adopt a latent representation, temporal graph (TG) that enhances the learning of TR. A synthetic dataset (TGQA), which is fully controllable and requires minimal supervision, is constructed for fine-tuning LLMs on this text-to-TG translation task. We confirmed in experiments that the capability of TG translation learned on our dataset can be transferred to other TR tasks and benchmarks. On top of that, we teach LLM to perform deliberate reasoning over the TGs via Chain-of-Thought (CoT) bootstrapping and graph data augmentation. We observed that those strategies, which maintain a balance between usefulness and diversity, bring more reliable CoTs and final results than the vanilla CoT distillation.

Read more

6/12/2024