arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 2402.07862cs.CYcs.AIcs.CLcs.LG
收藏

AI增强的预测:LLM助手提升人类预测准确性

AI-Augmented Predictions: LLM Assistants Improve Human Forecasting Accuracy

London School of Economics and Political Science(伦敦政治经济学院);Massachusetts Institute of Technology(麻省理工学院);Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago(芝加哥联邦储备银行);University of California San Diego(加利福尼亚大学圣迭戈分校);University of Pennsylvania(宾夕法尼亚大学)

Philipp Schoenegger, Peter S. Park, Ezra Karger, Sean Trott, Philip E. Tetlock

AI总结:

研究评估了两种LLM助手(超级预测和有噪声)对人类预测准确性的影响,发现前沿LLM助手显著提升预测准确性24%-28%,即使有噪声的助手也能作为有用的决策辅助工具。

摘要:

大型语言模型(LLMs)在许多领域匹配甚至有时超越人类表现。本研究探讨了LLMs在预测任务中增强人类判断的潜力。我们评估了两种LLM助手对人类预测者的影响:一种旨在提供高质量的“超级预测”建议,另一种被设计为过度自信且忽视基础概率,从而提供有噪声的预测建议。我们将使用这些助手的参与者与一个对照组进行比较,该对照组接收了一个较不先进的模型,该模型不提供数值预测,也不对预测进行明确讨论。参与者(N = 991)回答了一组六个预测问题,并可选择在整个过程中咨询其分配的LLM助手。我们的预注册分析显示,与对照组相比,与我们的前沿LLM助手互动显著提升了预测准确性,提升幅度在24%到28%之间。探索性分析显示在一个预测项中存在显著的异常值效应,排除该效应后,我们发现超级预测助手将准确性提高了41%,而有噪声助手提高了29%。我们进一步检验了LLM预测增强是否不成比例地惠及技能较低的预测者,是否通过减少预测多样性削弱了群体智慧,或其有效性是否随问题难度而变化。我们的数据并未一致支持这些假设。结果表明,与不提供具体预测建议的较弱模型相比,接触前沿LLM助手(即使是有噪声的助手)可以在认知要求高的任务中作为有用的决策辅助工具。然而,异常值的影响表明需要进一步研究这一模式的稳健性。

英文摘要:

Large language models (LLMs) match and sometimes exceeding human performance in many domains. This study explores the potential of LLMs to augment human judgement in a forecasting task. We evaluate the effect on human forecasters of two LLM assistants: one designed to provide high-quality ("superforecasting") advice, and the other designed to be overconfident and base-rate neglecting, thus providing noisy forecasting advice. We compare participants using these assistants to a control group that received a less advanced model that did not provide numerical predictions or engaged in explicit discussion of predictions. Participants (N = 991) answered a set of six forecasting questions and had the option to consult their assigned LLM assistant throughout. Our preregistered analyses show that interacting with each of our frontier LLM assistants significantly enhances prediction accuracy by between 24 percent and 28 percent compared to the control group. Exploratory analyses showed a pronounced outlier effect in one forecasting item, without which we find that the superforecasting assistant increased accuracy by 41 percent, compared with 29 percent for the noisy assistant. We further examine whether LLM forecasting augmentation disproportionately benefits less skilled forecasters, degrades the wisdom-of-the-crowd by reducing prediction diversity, or varies in effectiveness with question difficulty. Our data do not consistently support these hypotheses. Our results suggest that access to a frontier LLM assistant, even a noisy one, can be a helpful decision aid in cognitively demanding tasks compared to a less powerful model that does not provide specific forecasting advice. However, the effects of outliers suggest that further research into the robustness of this pattern is needed.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑