This paper investigates the influence of cognitive biases on Large Language Models (LLMs) outputs. Cognitive biases, such as confirmation and availability biases, can distort user inputs through prompts, potentially leading to unfaithful and misleading outputs from LLMs. Using a systematic framework, our study introduces various cognitive biases into prompts and assesses their impact on LLM accuracy across multiple benchmark datasets, including general and financial Q&A scenarios. The results demonstrate that even subtle biases can significantly alter LLM answer choices, highlighting a critical need for bias-aware prompt design and mitigation strategy. Additionally, our attention weight analysis highlights how these biases can alter the internal decision-making processes of LLMs, affecting the attention distribution in ways that are associated with output inaccuracies. This research has implications for Al developers and users in enhancing the robustness and reliability of Al applications in diverse domains.

Large language models (LLMs) have attracted significant attention for their remarkable abilities in various natural language processing tasks, but they suffer from hallucinations that will cause performance degradation. One promising solution to improve the LLMs' performance is to ask LLMs to revise their answer after generation, a technique known as self-correction. Among the two types of self-correction, intrinsic self-correction is considered a promising direction because it does not utilize external knowledge. However, recent works doubt the validity of LLM's ability to conduct intrinsic self-correction. In this paper, we present a novel perspective on the intrinsic self-correction capabilities of LLMs through theoretical analyses and empirical experiments. In addition, we identify two critical factors for successful self-correction: zero temperature and fair prompts. Leveraging these factors, we demonstrate that intrinsic self-correction ability is exhibited across multiple existing LLMs. Our findings offer insights into the fundamental theories underlying the self-correction behavior of LLMs and remark on the importance of unbiased prompts and zero temperature settings in harnessing their full potential.

Understanding and addressing unfairness in LLMs are crucial for responsible AI deployment. However, there is a limited availability of quantitative analyses and in-depth studies regarding fairness evaluations in LLMs, especially when applying LLMs to high-stakes fields. This work aims to fill this gap by providing a systematic evaluation of the effectiveness and fairness of LLMs using ChatGPT as a study case. We focus on assessing ChatGPT's performance in high-takes fields including education, criminology, finance and healthcare. To make thorough evaluation, we consider both group fairness and individual fairness and we also observe the disparities in ChatGPT's outputs under a set of biased or unbiased prompts. This work contributes to a deeper understanding of LLMs' fairness performance, facilitates bias mitigation and fosters the development of responsible artificial intelligence systems.