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.

In recent years, transformer-based language representation models (LRMs) have achieved state-of-the-art results on difficult natural language understanding problems, such as question answering and text summarization. As these models are integrated into real-world applications, evaluating their ability to make rational decisions is an important research agenda, with practical ramifications. This article investigates LRMs' rational decision-making ability through a carefully designed set of decision-making benchmarks and experiments. Inspired by classic work in cognitive science, we model the decision-making problem as a bet. We then investigate an LRM's ability to choose outcomes that have optimal, or at minimum, positive expected gain. Through a robust body of experiments on four established LRMs, we show that a model is only able to `think in bets' if it is first fine-tuned on bet questions with an identical structure. Modifying the bet question's structure, while still retaining its fundamental characteristics, decreases an LRM's performance by more than 25\%, on average, although absolute performance remains well above random. LRMs are also found to be more rational when selecting outcomes with non-negative expected gain, rather than optimal or strictly positive expected gain. Our results suggest that LRMs could potentially be applied to tasks that rely on cognitive decision-making skills, but that more research is necessary before they can robustly make rational decisions.