Primacy Effect of ChatGPT

Authors: Yiwei Wang, Yujun Cai, Muhao Chen, Yuxuan Liang, Bryan Hooi

EMNLP 2023 short paper
License: CC BY 4.0

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2310.13206v1

  • Comprehensive Summary
  • Key points
  • Layman's Summary
  • Blog article
The paper titled "Primacy Effect of ChatGPT" explores whether large language models like ChatGPT inherit humans' cognitive biases. To investigate this, the authors conduct experiments using ChatGPT and analyze its decision-making process based on the order of labels in the prompt. They find that ChatGPT's decision is sensitive to the order of labels and has a higher likelihood of selecting labels at earlier positions as the answer. To evaluate this bias quantitatively, they introduce a metric called label order imbalance (LOI), which measures the disparity between predicted label indices and a uniform distribution. The results show that ChatGPT exhibits unfair treatment of label indices when making relation label predictions for input texts and that this unfairness increases with task difficulty. Furthermore, the researchers release their source code to facilitate further exploration and development in this area. Overall, this research contributes to our understanding of how large language models like ChatGPT make decisions and emphasizes the importance of addressing biases in these models for more trustworthy outcomes.
AI-generated keywords: Primacy Effect ChatGPT Cognitive Bias Label Order Imbalance Task Difficulty

AI-generated Key Points

  • The paper explores if large language models like ChatGPT inherit human cognitive biases
  • Experiments were conducted using ChatGPT to analyze its decision-making process based on label order in the prompt
  • ChatGPT's decision is sensitive to label order and has a higher likelihood of selecting labels at earlier positions as the answer
  • A metric called label order imbalance (LOI) was introduced to quantitatively evaluate this bias
  • Results show that ChatGPT exhibits unfair treatment of label indices, particularly for relation label predictions and with increasing task difficulty
  • Source code is released by the researchers for further exploration and development in this area
  • This research contributes to understanding how large language models make decisions and highlights the need to address biases for more trustworthy outcomes.
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Abstract: Instruction-tuned large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, have led to promising zero-shot performance in discriminative natural language understanding (NLU) tasks. This involves querying the LLM using a prompt containing the question, and the candidate labels to choose from. The question-answering capabilities of ChatGPT arise from its pre-training on large amounts of human-written text, as well as its subsequent fine-tuning on human preferences, which motivates us to ask: Does ChatGPT also inherits humans' cognitive biases? In this paper, we study the primacy effect of ChatGPT: the tendency of selecting the labels at earlier positions as the answer. We have two main findings: i) ChatGPT's decision is sensitive to the order of labels in the prompt; ii) ChatGPT has a clearly higher chance to select the labels at earlier positions as the answer. We hope that our experiments and analyses provide additional insights into building more reliable ChatGPT-based solutions. We release the source code at https://github.com/wangywUST/PrimacyEffectGPT.

Submitted to arXiv on 20 Oct. 2023

Tools for this paper

Explain it differently 3 free rewrites left today
Export BibTeX · RIS (Zotero, Mendeley, EndNote) · Markdown (Notion, Obsidian) · Premium
Citation alerts Premium
Journal club Slides to present it Premium
For journalists Press kit and hype check Premium

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

Figures and plots

Ask about a figure by number or use its question button to request visual analysis. Up to two figures and four image panels per question. Values read from plots are approximate; check the original data.

AI assistant instructions?

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.

Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.