Aligning large language models (LLMs) with human preferences becomes a key component to obtaining state-of-the-art performance, but it yields a huge cost to construct a large human-annotated preference dataset. To tackle this problem, we propose a new framework, Spread Preference Annotation with direct preference judgment (SPA), that boosts the alignment of LLMs using only a very small amount of human-annotated preference data.Our key idea is leveraging the human prior knowledge within the small (seed) data and progressively improving the alignment of LLM, by iteratively generating the responses and learning from them with the self-annotated preference data.To be specific, we propose to derive the preference label from the logits of LLM to explicitly extract the model's inherent preference. Compared to the previous approaches using external reward models or implicit in-context learning, we observe that the proposed approach is significantly more effective.In addition, we introduce a noise-aware preference learning algorithm to mitigate the risk of low quality within generated preference data.Our experimental results demonstrate that the proposed framework significantly boosts the alignment of LLMs.For example, we achieve superior alignment performance on AlpacaEval 2.0 with only 3.3% of the ground-truth preference labels in the Ultrafeedback data compared to the cases using the entire data or state-of-the-art baselines.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as chatbots, yet their ability to personalize responses to user preferences remains limited. We introduce PrefEval, a benchmark for evaluating LLMs' ability to infer, memorize and adhere to user preferences in long-context conversational setting.PrefEval comprises 3,000 manually curated user preference and query pairs spanning 20 topics. PrefEval contains user personalization or preference information in both explicit and implicit preference forms, and evaluates LLM performance using a generation and a classification task. With PrefEval, we have evaluated 10 open-sourced andproprietary LLMs in multi-session conversations with varying context lengths up to 100k tokens. We benchmark with various prompting, iterative feedback, and retrieval-augmented generation methods. Our benchmarking effort reveals that state-of-the-art LLMs face significant challenges in following users' preference during conversations. In particular, in zero-shot settings, preference following accuracy falls below 10\% at merely 10 turns (~3k tokens) across most evaluated models. Even with advanced prompting and retrieval methods, preference following still deteriorates in long-context conversations. Furthermore, we show that fine-tuning on PrefEval significantly improves performance. We believe PrefEval serves as a valuable resource for measuring, understanding, and enhancing LLMs' proactive preference following abilities, paving the way for personalized conversational agents.

Recent studies empirically indicate that language models (LMs) encode rich world knowledge beyond mere semantics, attracting significant attention across various fields.However, in the recommendation domain, it remains uncertain whether LMs implicitly encode user preference information. Contrary to prevailing understanding that LMs and traditional recommenders learn two distinct representation spaces due to the huge gap in language and behavior modeling objectives, this work re-examines such understanding and explores extracting a recommendation space directly from the language representation space.Surprisingly, our findings demonstrate that item representations, when linearly mapped from advanced LM representations, yield superior recommendation performance.This outcome suggests the possible homomorphism between the advanced language representation space and an effective item representation space for recommendation, implying that collaborative signals may be implicitly encoded within LMs.Motivated by the finding of homomorphism, we explore the possibility of designing advanced collaborative filtering (CF) models purely based on language representations without ID-based embeddings.To be specific, we incorporate several crucial components (i.e., a multilayer perceptron (MLP), graph convolution, and contrastive learning (CL) loss function) to build a simple yet effective model, with the language representations of item textual metadata (i.e., title) as the input.Empirical results show that such a simple model can outperform leading ID-based CF models on multiple datasets, which sheds light on using language representations for better recommendation.Moreover, we systematically analyze this simple model and find several key features for using advanced language representations:a good initialization for item representations, superior zero-shot recommendation abilities in new datasets, and being aware of user intention.Our findings highlight the connection between language modeling and behavior modeling, which can inspire both natural language processing and recommender system communities.

We introduce DarkBench, a comprehensive benchmark for detecting dark design patterns—manipulative techniques that influence user behavior—in interactions with large language models (LLMs). Our benchmark comprises 660 prompts across six categories: brand bias, user retention, sycophancy, anthropomorphism, harmful generation, and sneaking. We evaluate models from five leading companies (OpenAI, Anthropic, Meta, Mistral, Google) and find that some LLMs are explicitly designed to favor their developers' products and exhibit untruthful communication, among other manipulative behaviors. Companies developing LLMs should recognize and mitigate the impact of dark design patterns to promote more ethical Al.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated the ability to generate text that realistically reflects a range of different subjective human perspectives. This paper studies how LLMs are seemingly able to reflect more liberal versus more conservative viewpoints among other political perspectives in American politics. We show that LLMs possess linear representations of political perspectives within activation space, wherein more similar perspectives are represented closer together. To do so, we probe the attention heads across the layers of three open transformer-based LLMs (\texttt{Llama-2-7b-chat}, \texttt{Mistral-7b-instruct}, \texttt{Vicuna-7b}). We first prompt models to generate text from the perspectives of different U.S.~lawmakers. We then identify sets of attention heads whose activations linearly predict those lawmakers' DW-NOMINATE scores, a widely-used and validated measure of political ideology. We find that highly predictive heads are primarily located in the middle layers, often speculated to encode high-level concepts and tasks. Using probes only trained to predict lawmakers' ideology, we then show that the same probes can predict measures of news outlets' slant from the activations of models prompted to simulate text from those news outlets. These linear probes allow us to visualize, interpret, and monitor ideological stances implicitly adopted by an LLM as it generates open-ended responses. Finally, we demonstrate that by applying linear interventions to these attention heads, we can steer the model outputs toward a more liberal or conservative stance. Overall, our research suggests that LLMs possess a high-level linear representation of American political ideology and that by leveraging recent advances in mechanistic interpretability, we can identify, monitor, and steer the subjective perspective underlying generated text.

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) revolutionize the field of intelligent agents, enabling collaborative multi-agent systems capable of tackling complex problems across various domains. However, the potential of conformity within these systems, analogous to phenomena like conformity bias and group-think in human group dynamics, remains largely unexplored, raising concerns about their collective problem-solving capabilities and possible ethical implications. This paper presents a comprehensive study on conformity in LLM-driven multi-agent systems, focusing on three aspects: the existence of conformity, the factors influencing conformity, and potential mitigation strategies. In particular, we introduce BenchForm, a new conformity-oriented benchmark, featuring reasoning-intensive tasks and five distinct interaction protocols designed to probe LLMs’ behavior in collaborative scenarios. Several representative LLMs are evaluated on BenchForm, using metrics such as conformity rate and independence rate to quantify conformity’s impact. Our analysis delves into factors influencing conformity, including interaction time and majority size, and examines how the subject agent rationalize its conforming behavior. Furthermore, we explore two strategies to mitigate conformity effects, i.e., developing enhanced persona and implementing a reflection mechanism. Several interesting findings regarding LLMs’ conformity are derived from empirical results and case studies. We hope that these insights can pave the way for more robust and ethically-aligned collaborative AI systems. Our benchmark and code are available at BenchForm.