Perceptions of Linguistic Uncertainty by Language Models and Humans

Uncertainty expressions such as ``probably'' or ``highly unlikely'' are pervasive in human language. While prior work has established that there is population-level agreement in terms of how humans interpret these expressions, there has been little inquiry into the abilities of language models to interpret such expressions. In this paper, we investigate how language models map linguistic expressions of uncertainty to numerical responses. Our approach assesses whether language models can employ theory of mind in this setting: understanding the uncertainty of another agent about a particular statement, independently of the model's own certainty about that statement. We evaluate both humans and 10 popular language models on a task created to assess these abilities. Unexpectedly, we find that 8 out of 10 models are able to map uncertainty expressions to probabilistic responses in a human-like manner. However, we observe systematically different behavior depending on whether a statement is actually true or false. This sensitivity indicates that language models are substantially more susceptible to bias based on their prior knowledge (as compared to humans). These findings raise important questions and have broad implications for human-AI alignment and AI-AI communication.

The Calibration Gap between Model and Human Confidence in Large Language Models

For large language models (LLMs) to be trusted by humans they need to be well-calibrated in the sense that they can accurately assess and communicate how likely it is that their predictions are correct. Recent work has focused on the quality of internal LLM confidence assessments, but the question remains of how well LLMs can communicate this internal model confidence to human users. This paper explores the disparity between external human confidence in an LLM's responses and the internal confidence of the model. Through experiments involving multiple-choice questions, we systematically examine human users' ability to discern the reliability of LLM outputs. Our study focuses on two key areas: (1) assessing users' perception of true LLM confidence and (2) investigating the impact of tailored explanations on this perception. The research highlights that default explanations from LLMs often lead to user overestimation of both the model's confidence and its' accuracy. By modifying the explanations to more accurately reflect the LLM's internal confidence, we observe a significant shift in user perception, aligning it more closely with the model's actual confidence levels. This adjustment in explanatory approach demonstrates potential for enhancing user trust and accuracy in assessing LLM outputs. The findings underscore the importance of transparent communication of confidence levels in LLMs, particularly in high-stakes applications where understanding the reliability of AI-generated information is essential.

Bayesian Online Learning for Consensus Prediction

Given a pre-trained classifier and multiple human experts, we investigate the task of online classification where model predictions are provided for free but querying humans incurs a cost. In this practical but under-explored setting, oracle ground truth is not available. Instead, the prediction target is defined as the consensus vote of all experts. Given that querying full consensus can be costly, we propose a general framework for online Bayesian consensus estimation, leveraging properties of the multivariate hypergeometric distribution. Based on this framework, we propose a family of methods that dynamically estimate expert consensus from partial feedback by producing a posterior over expert and model beliefs. Analyzing this posterior induces an interpretable trade-off between querying cost and classification performance. We demonstrate the efficacy of our framework against a variety of baselines on CIFAR-10H and ImageNet-16H, two large-scale crowdsourced datasets.

Capturing Humans' Mental Models of AI: An Item Response Theory Approach

Improving our understanding of how humans perceive AI teammates is an important foundation for our general understanding of human-AI teams. Extending relevant work from cognitive science, we propose a framework based on item response theory for modeling these perceptions. We apply this framework to real-world experiments, in which each participant works alongside another person or an AI agent in a question-answering setting, repeatedly assessing their teammate's performance. Using this experimental data, we demonstrate the use of our framework for testing research questions about people's perceptions of both AI agents and other people. We contrast mental models of AI teammates with those of human teammates as we characterize the dimensionality of these mental models, their development over time, and the influence of the participants' own self-perception. Our results indicate that people expect AI agents' performance to be significantly better on average than the performance of other humans, with less variation across different types of problems. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of these findings for human-AI interaction.

Combining Human Predictions with Model Probabilities via Confusion Matrices and Calibration

An increasingly common use case for machine learning models is augmenting the abilities of human decision makers. For classification tasks where neither the human or model are perfectly accurate, a key step in obtaining high performance is combining their individual predictions in a manner that leverages their relative strengths. In this work, we develop a set of algorithms that combine the probabilistic output of a model with the class-level output of a human. We show theoretically that the accuracy of our combination model is driven not only by the individual human and model accuracies, but also by the model's confidence. Empirical results on image classification with CIFAR-10 and a subset of ImageNet demonstrate that such human-model combinations consistently have higher accuracies than the model or human alone, and that the parameters of the combination method can be estimated effectively with as few as ten labeled datapoints.

Can I Trust My Fairness Metric? Assessing Fairness with Unlabeled Data and Bayesian Inference

We investigate the problem of reliably assessing group fairness when labeled examples are few but unlabeled examples are plentiful. We propose a general Bayesian framework that can augment labeled data with unlabeled data to produce more accurate and lower-variance estimates compared to methods based on labeled data alone. Our approach estimates calibrated scores for unlabeled examples in each group using a hierarchical latent variable model conditioned on labeled examples. This in turn allows for inference of posterior distributions with associated notions of uncertainty for a variety of group fairness metrics. We demonstrate that our approach leads to significant and consistent reductions in estimation error across multiple well-known fairness datasets, sensitive attributes, and predictive models. The results show the benefits of using both unlabeled data and Bayesian inference in terms of assessing whether a prediction model is fair or not.

Active Bayesian Assessment for Black-Box Classifiers

Recent advances in machine learning have led to increased deployment of black-box classifiers across a wide variety of applications. In many such situations there is a crucial need to assess the performance of these pre-trained models, for instance to ensure sufficient predictive accuracy, or that class probabilities are well-calibrated. Furthermore, since labeled data may be scarce or costly to collect, it is desirable for such assessment be performed in an efficient manner. In this paper, we introduce a Bayesian approach for model assessment that satisfies these desiderata. We develop inference strategies to quantify uncertainty for common assessment metrics (accuracy, misclassification cost, expected calibration error), and propose a framework for active assessment using this uncertainty to guide efficient selection of instances for labeling. We illustrate the benefits of our approach in experiments assessing the performance of modern neural classifiers (e.g., ResNet and BERT) on several standard image and text classification datasets.

The Author-Topic Model for Authors and Documents

We introduce the author-topic model, a generative model for documents that extends Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA; Blei, Ng, & Jordan, 2003) to include authorship information. Each author is associated with a multinomial distribution over topics and each topic is associated with a multinomial distribution over words. A document with multiple authors is modeled as a distribution over topics that is a mixture of the distributions associated with the authors. We apply the model to a collection of 1,700 NIPS conference papers and 160,000 CiteSeer abstracts. Exact inference is intractable for these datasets and we use Gibbs sampling to estimate the topic and author distributions. We compare the performance with two other generative models for documents, which are special cases of the author-topic model: LDA (a topic model) and a simple author model in which each author is associated with a distribution over words rather than a distribution over topics. We show topics recovered by the author-topic model, and demonstrate applications to computing similarity between authors and entropy of author output.

Statistical Topic Models for Multi-Label Document Classification

Machine learning approaches to multi-label document classification have to date largely relied on discriminative modeling techniques such as support vector machines. A drawback of these approaches is that performance rapidly drops off as the total number of labels and the number of labels per document increase. This problem is amplified when the label frequencies exhibit the type of highly skewed distributions that are often observed in real-world datasets. In this paper we investigate a class of generative statistical topic models for multi-label documents that associate individual word tokens with different labels. We investigate the advantages of this approach relative to discriminative models, particularly with respect to classification problems involving large numbers of relatively rare labels. We compare the performance of generative and discriminative approaches on document labeling tasks ranging from datasets with several thousand labels to datasets with tens of labels. The experimental results indicate that probabilistic generative models can achieve competitive multi-label classification performance compared to discriminative methods, and have advantages for datasets with many labels and skewed label frequencies.

Text Modeling using Unsupervised Topic Models and Concept Hierarchies

Statistical topic models provide a general data-driven framework for automated discovery of high-level knowledge from large collections of text documents. While topic models can potentially discover a broad range of themes in a data set, the interpretability of the learned topics is not always ideal. Human-defined concepts, on the other hand, tend to be semantically richer due to careful selection of words to define concepts but they tend not to cover the themes in a data set exhaustively. In this paper, we propose a probabilistic framework to combine a hierarchy of human-defined semantic concepts with statistical topic models to seek the best of both worlds. Experimental results using two different sources of concept hierarchies and two collections of text documents indicate that this combination leads to systematic improvements in the quality of the associated language models as well as enabling new techniques for inferring and visualizing the semantics of a document.