Using Large Language Models (LLMs) to simulate user opinions has received growing attention. Yet LLMs, especially trained with reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), are known to exhibit biases toward dominant viewpoints, raising concerns about their ability to represent users from diverse demographic and cultural backgrounds. In this work, we examine the extent to which LLMs can simulate human responses to cross-domain survey questions through direct prompting and chain-of-thought prompting. We further propose a claim diversification method CLAIMSIM, which elicits viewpoints from LLM parametric knowledge as contextual input. Experiments on the survey question answering task indicate that, while CLAIMSIM produces more diverse responses, both approaches struggle to accurately simulate users. Further analysis reveals two key limitations: (1) LLMs tend to maintain fixed viewpoints across varying demographic features, and generate single-perspective claims; and (2) when presented with conflicting claims, LLMs struggle to reason over nuanced differences among demographic features, limiting their ability to adapt responses to specific user profiles.

To reveal when a large language model (LLM) is uncertain about a response, uncertainty quantification commonly produces percentage numbers along with the output. But is this all we can do? We argue that in the output space of LLMs, the space of strings, exist strings expressive enough to summarize the distribution over output strings the LLM deems possible. We lay a foundation for this new avenue of uncertainty explication and present SelfReflect, a theoretically-motivated metric to assess how faithfully a string summarizes an LLM's internal answer distribution. We show that SelfReflect is able to discriminate even subtle differences of candidate summary strings and that it aligns with human judgement, outperforming alternative metrics such as LLM judges and embedding comparisons. With SelfReflect, we investigate a number of self-summarization methods and find that even state-of-the-art reasoning models struggle to explicate their internal uncertainty. But we find that faithful summarizations can be generated by sampling and summarizing. To support the development of this universal form of LLM uncertainties, we publish our metric at https://github.com/apple/ml-selfreflect

Self-consistency improves reasoning by aggregating diverse stochastic samples, yet the dynamics behind its efficacy remain underexplored. We reframe self-consistency as a dynamic distributional alignment problem, revealing that decoding temperature not only governs sampling randomness but also actively shapes the latent answer distribution. Given that high temperatures require prohibitively large sample sizes to stabilize, while low temperatures risk amplifying biases, we propose a confidence-driven mechanism that dynamically calibrates temperature: sharpening the sampling distribution under uncertainty to align with high-probability modes, and promoting exploration when confidence is high. Experiments on mathematical reasoning tasks show this approach outperforms fixed-diversity baselines under limited samples, improving both average and best-case performance across varying initial temperatures without additional data or modules. This establishes self-consistency as a synchronization challenge between sampling dynamics and evolving answer distributions.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in role-playing scenarios, particularly in simulating domain-specific experts using tailored prompts. This ability enables LLMs to adopt the persona of individuals with specific backgrounds, offering a cost-effective and efficient alternative to traditional, resource-intensive user studies. By mimicking human behavior, LLMs can anticipate responses based on concrete demographic or professional profiles. In this paper, we evaluate the effectiveness of LLMs in simulating individuals with diverse backgrounds and analyze the consistency of these simulated behaviors compared to real-world outcomes. In particular, we explore the potential of LLMs to interpret and respond to discharge summaries provided to patients leaving the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). We evaluate and compare with human responses the comprehensibility of discharge summaries among individuals with varying educational backgrounds, using this analysis to assess the strengths and limitations of LLM-driven simulations. Notably, when LLMs are primed with educational background information, they deliver accurate and actionable medical guidance 88% of the time. However, when other information is provided, performance significantly drops, falling below random chance levels. This preliminary study shows the potential benefits and pitfalls of automatically generating patient-specific health information from diverse populations. While LLMs show promise in simulating health personas, our results highlight critical gaps that must be addressed before they can be reliably used in clinical settings. Our findings suggest that a straightforward query-response model could outperform a more tailored approach in delivering health information. This is a crucial first step in understanding how LLMs can be optimized for personalized health communication while maintaining accuracy.

This paper studies the problem of handling the langauge/text pariors in the task visual question answering. The great performance achieved by many state-of-the-art VQA systems are accomplished by heavily learning a better question encoding to better capture the correlations between the questions and answers, but ignore the image information. So the problem is important to the VQA research community. In general, the paper is well-written and easy to follow. And some concerns and sugggestions can be found as the following: 1) The major concern is the basic intuition of the question-only adversary: The question encoding q_i from the question encoder is not necessarily the same bias that lead the VQA model f to ignore the visual content. Since f can be a deep neutral network, for example, deep RNN or deep RNN-CNN to leverage both the question embedding and visual embedding, thus the non-linearity in f would make the question embedding as a image-aware represention to generate the answer distribution.

To answer a question, language models often need to integrate prior knowledge learned during pretraining and new information presented in context. We hypothesize that models perform this integration in a predictable way across different questions and contexts: models will rely more on prior knowledge for questions about entities (e.g., persons, places, etc.) that they are more familiar with due to higher exposure in the training corpus, and be more easily persuaded by some contexts than others. To formalize this problem, we propose two mutual information-based metrics to measure a model's dependency on a context and on its prior about an entity: first, the persuasion score of a given context represents how much a model depends on the context in its decision, and second, the susceptibility score of a given entity represents how much the model can be swayed away from its original answer distribution about an entity. We empirically test our metrics for their validity and reliability. Finally, we explore and find a relationship between the scores and the model's expected familiarity with an entity, and provide two use cases to illustrate their benefits.

Large language models have demonstrated impressive performance on commonsense tasks; however, these tasks are often posed as multiple-choice questions, allowing models to exploit systematic biases. Commonsense is also inherently probabilistic with multiple correct answers. The purpose of "boiling water" could be making tea and cooking, but it also could be killing germs. Existing tasks do not capture the probabilistic nature of common sense. To this end, we present commonsense frame completion (CFC), a new generative task that evaluates common sense via multiple open-ended generations. We also propose a method of probabilistic evaluation that strongly correlates with human judgments. Humans drastically outperform strong language model baselines on our dataset, indicating this approach is both a challenging and useful evaluation of machine common sense.

The awareness of multi-cultural human values is critical to the ability of language models (LMs) to generate safe and personalized responses. However, this awareness of LMs has been insufficiently studied, since the computer science community lacks access to the large-scale real-world data about multi-cultural values. In this paper, we present WorldValuesBench, a globally diverse, large-scale benchmark dataset for the multi-cultural value prediction task, which requires a model to generate a rating response to a value question based on demographic contexts. Our dataset is derived from an influential social science project, World Values Survey (WVS), that has collected answers to hundreds of value questions (e.g., social, economic, ethical) from 94,728 participants worldwide. We have constructed more than 20 million examples of the type "(demographic attributes, value question) $\rightarrow$ answer" from the WVS responses. We perform a case study using our dataset and show that the task is challenging for strong open and closed-source models. On merely $11.1\%$, $25.0\%$, $72.2\%$, and $75.0\%$ of the questions, Alpaca-7B, Vicuna-7B-v1.5, Mixtral-8x7B-Instruct-v0.1, and GPT-3.5 Turbo can respectively achieve $<0.2$ Wasserstein 1-distance from the human normalized answer distributions. WorldValuesBench opens up new research avenues in studying limitations and opportunities in multi-cultural value awareness of LMs.

Generalization in Visual Question Answering (VQA) requires models to answer questions about images with contexts beyond the training distribution. Existing attempts primarily refine unimodal aspects, overlooking enhancements in multimodal aspects. Besides, diverse interpretations of the input lead to various modes of answer generation, highlighting the role of causal reasoning between interpreting and answering steps in VQA. Through this lens, we propose Cognitive pathways VQA (CopVQA) improving the multimodal predictions by emphasizing causal reasoning factors. CopVQA first operates a pool of pathways that capture diverse causal reasoning flows through interpreting and answering stages. Mirroring human cognition, we decompose the responsibility of each stage into distinct experts and a cognition-enabled component (CC). The two CCs strategically execute one expert for each stage at a time. Finally, we prioritize answer predictions governed by pathways involving both CCs while disregarding answers produced by either CC, thereby emphasizing causal reasoning and supporting generalization. Our experiments on real-life and medical data consistently verify that CopVQA improves VQA performance and generalization across baselines and domains. Notably, CopVQA achieves a new state-of-the-art (SOTA) on PathVQA dataset and comparable accuracy to the current SOTA on VQA-CPv2, VQAv2, and VQA RAD, with one-fourth of the model size.