Prompting Techniques for Reducing Social Bias in LLMs through System 1 and System 2 Cognitive Processes

Overview

• The paper investigates the relationship between bias, chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting, and dual process theory in large language models (LLMs).
• Dual process theory suggests that human cognition arises through two systems: a quick, emotional, and intuitive System 1, and a slow, deliberate System 2.
• Prior research has found that using CoT prompting in LLMs can lead to reduced gender bias, which the authors interpret as aligning with System 2 reasoning.
• The paper compares zero-shot, CoT, and various dual process theory-based prompting strategies on bias datasets spanning nine social bias categories.
• The authors also use human and machine personas to determine whether the effects of dual process theory in LLMs are based on modeling human cognition or are inherent to the system.

Plain English Explanation

The paper explores how large language models (LLMs) deal with biases, and whether different prompting strategies can help reduce these biases. The researchers use a theory called "dual process theory" to understand how LLMs process information.

Dual process theory suggests that human decision-making and reasoning happen through two different systems. System 1 is fast, automatic, and intuitive, but it can be influenced by biases. System 2 is slower, more deliberate, and less affected by biases.

The researchers compare different prompting strategies in LLMs to these two systems. Zero-shot prompting is like System 1 - it's quick and intuitive. Chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting is more like System 2 - it's slower and more deliberate.

Previous research has found that CoT prompting can reduce gender bias in LLMs, which the authors see as aligning with the less biased System 2 reasoning. In this paper, the researchers dig deeper into the relationship between bias, prompting strategies, and dual process theory in LLMs.

They test various prompting approaches on datasets that measure different types of social biases. They also use both human and machine personas to understand whether the effects are based on modeling human cognition or are inherent to the LLM itself.

Technical Explanation

The paper compares the performance of zero-shot, CoT, and a variety of dual process theory-based prompting strategies on two bias datasets spanning nine different social bias categories. The authors use both human and machine personas to investigate whether the effects of dual process theory in LLMs are based on modeling human cognition or are inherent to the system.

The researchers find that a human persona, System 2 prompting, and CoT prompting all tend to reduce social biases in LLMs, though the best combination of features depends on the exact model and bias category. This can result in up to a 13 percent drop in stereotypical judgments by an LLM.

The authors interpret these findings as supporting the idea that CoT prompting, which aligns with System 2 reasoning, can help mitigate biases in LLMs. However, they also note that the effects are not uniform across all bias categories, suggesting that more targeted debiasing strategies may be necessary.

Additionally, the fact that machine personas also show reduced biases indicates that the effects are not solely due to modeling human cognition, but are also inherent to the LLM system itself. This suggests that LLMs may have the potential to exhibit less biased reasoning without necessarily mimicking human thought processes.

Critical Analysis

The paper provides a interesting investigation into the relationship between bias, prompting strategies, and dual process theory in LLMs. The researchers' use of both human and machine personas to study this is a valuable approach, as it helps distinguish the effects that are inherent to the LLM system from those that are based on modeling human cognition.

However, the paper does not fully address the potential limitations of the dual process theory framework for understanding LLM behavior. While the analogy to System 1 and System 2 reasoning is compelling, LLMs may exhibit more complex and nuanced cognitive processes that don't necessarily map neatly onto this binary model.

Additionally, the paper focuses on a limited set of social bias datasets and prompting strategies. It would be helpful to see the researchers expand their analysis to a wider range of bias measures and prompting approaches to get a more comprehensive understanding of the dynamics at play.

Future research could also explore the potential interactions between bias, prompting, and other factors, such as cognitive load or bias patterns, to gain a more nuanced understanding of how LLMs process and reason about social information.

Conclusion

This paper provides an interesting investigation into the relationship between bias, prompting strategies, and dual process theory in large language models. The researchers find that approaches aligned with System 2 reasoning, such as chain-of-thought prompting and the use of a human persona, can help reduce social biases in LLMs.

However, the paper also suggests that the effects are not uniform across all bias categories and that the LLM system itself may exhibit inherent tendencies towards less biased reasoning, independent of modeling human cognition. This indicates that there is still much to be explored in terms of developing effective debiasing strategies for LLMs and understanding the underlying cognitive mechanisms at play.

Overall, this research contributes to our understanding of how LLMs process social information and offers promising avenues for further exploration and refinement of bias mitigation techniques in these powerful AI systems.