REVIEW 4 cited by
Benchmarking Distributional Alignment of Large Language Models
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
Language models (LMs) are increasingly used as simulacra for people, yet their ability to match the distribution of views of a specific demographic group and be \textit{distributionally aligned} remains uncertain. This notion of distributional alignment is complex, as there is significant variation in the types of attributes that are simulated. Prior works have underexplored the role of three critical variables -- the question domain, steering method, and distribution expression method -- which motivates our contribution of a benchmark explicitly addressing these dimensions. We construct a dataset expanding beyond political values, create human baselines for this task, and evaluate the extent to which an LM can align with a particular group's opinion distribution to inform design choices of such simulation systems. Our analysis reveals open problems regarding if, and how, LMs can be used to simulate humans, and that LLMs can more accurately describe the opinion distribution than simulate such distributions.
Forward citations
Cited by 4 Pith papers
-
Partition, Prompt, Aggregate: Statistical Self-Consistency in Language Models
LLM probability estimates violate the law of total probability across partitions, and subgroup-aggregated estimates often beat direct population-level estimates (the macro fallacy).
-
Video2Reaction: Mapping Video to Audience Reaction Distribution in the Wild
A new dataset and benchmark maps movie clips to distributions of audience emotional reactions derived from YouTube comments, showing that finetuned vision-language models can predict these distributions from video alone.
-
The Pluralistic Moral Gap: Understanding Judgment and Value Differences between Humans and Large Language Models
LLMs align with human moral judgments only under high consensus, concentrate on a narrow set of moral values, and the profile-based prompting method's reported improvement is evaluated in-sample.
-
Using LLMs to Advance the Cognitive Science of Collectives
A position paper arguing that LLMs can help cognitive scientists study collective behavior along structural, interactional, and individual complexity axes, with cautions about bias and reproducibility.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.