Abstract:Much recent work seeks to evaluate values and opinions in large language models (LLMs) using multiple-choice surveys and questionnaires. Most of this work is motivated by concerns around real-world LLM applications. For example, politically-biased LLMs may subtly influence society when they are used by millions of people. Such real-world concerns, however, stand in stark contrast to the artificiality of current evaluations: real users do not typically ask LLMs survey questions. Motivated by this discrepancy, we challenge the prevailing constrained evaluation paradigm for values and opinions in LLMs and explore more realistic unconstrained evaluations. As a case study, we focus on the popular Political Compass Test (PCT). In a systematic review, we find that most prior work using the PCT forces models to comply with the PCT's multiple-choice format. We show that models give substantively different answers when not forced; that answers change depending on how models are forced; and that answers lack paraphrase robustness. Then, we demonstrate that models give different answers yet again in a more realistic open-ended answer setting. We distill these findings into recommendations and open challenges in evaluating values and opinions in LLMs.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The problem that this paper attempts to solve is: How to meaningfully evaluate values and opinions in large - language models (LLMs)? Most of the current evaluation methods rely on multiple - choice questions, which is inconsistent with the way users interact with LLMs in the real world, because in reality users will not ask LLMs in the form of questionnaires. The paper points out that this evaluation method has obvious artificial constraints and may lead to unstable evaluation results and lack of generalization ability. Therefore, the author challenges the existing restricted evaluation paradigm and explores more realistic unrestricted evaluation methods, especially for the Political Compass Test (PCT), a commonly used evaluation tool. Specifically, the paper explores this problem in the following aspects: 1. **Systematic Review**: The author systematically reviewed 12 related literatures on using PCT to evaluate LLMs and found that most studies forced the model to follow the multiple - choice format of PCT. 2. **Model Performance under Different Constraints**: The author shows that when the model is not forced to choose or is forced to choose in different ways, the model's answers will be significantly different. 3. **Restatement Stability**: Through the restatement experiment with minimal semantic preservation, the author finds that even a slight change in the prompt will lead to a significant difference in PCT results. 4. **Open - ended Response Setting**: The author evaluates the model's performance in a more realistic open - ended response setting and finds that there are significant differences between the model's open - ended responses and multiple - choice responses. In summary, the core problem of the paper is to explore how to more accurately evaluate values and opinions in LLMs in a situation closer to the real - use scenario, so as to provide guidance and suggestions for future evaluation methods.

Political Compass or Spinning Arrow? Towards More Meaningful Evaluations for Values and Opinions in Large Language Models

Revealing Fine-Grained Values and Opinions in Large Language Models

The Potential and Challenges of Evaluating Attitudes, Opinions, and Values in Large Language Models

Language Model Council: Democratically Benchmarking Foundation Models on Highly Subjective Tasks

Beyond prompt brittleness: Evaluating the reliability and consistency of political worldviews in LLMs

The Political Preferences of LLMs

Whose Side Are You On? Investigating the Political Stance of Large Language Models

Do LLMs have Consistent Values?

CLAVE: An Adaptive Framework for Evaluating Values of LLM Generated Responses

Evaluating the Moral Beliefs Encoded in LLMs

Assessing Political Bias in Large Language Models

Large Language Models as Superpositions of Cultural Perspectives

ValueBench: Towards Comprehensively Evaluating Value Orientations and Understanding of Large Language Models

Assessing LLMs for Moral Value Pluralism

Exploring and steering the moral compass of Large Language Models

Evaluating Moral Beliefs across LLMs through a Pluralistic Framework

Rethinking Pragmatics in Large Language Models: Towards Open-Ended Evaluation and Preference Tuning

Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect?

Unpacking Political Bias in Large Language Models: Insights Across Topic Polarization

GermanPartiesQA: Benchmarking Commercial Large Language Models for Political Bias and Sycophancy

Edu-Values: Towards Evaluating the Chinese Education Values of Large Language Models