Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as human assistants across various domains where they help to make choices. However, the mechanisms behind LLMs’ choice behavior remain unclear, posing risks in safety-critical situations. Inspired by the intrinsic and extrinsic motivation framework within the classic human behavioral model of Self-Determination Theory and its established research methodologies, we investigate the factors influencing LLMs’ choice behavior by constructing a virtual QA platform that includes three different experimental conditions, with four models from GPT and Llama series participating in repeated experiments. Our findings indicate that LLMs’ behavior is influenced not only by intrinsic attention bias but also by extrinsic social influence, exhibiting patterns similar to the Matthew effect and Conformity. We distinguish independent pathways of these two factors in LLMs’ behavior by self-report. This work provides new insights into understanding LLMs’ behavioral patterns, exploring their human-like characteristics.

Despite possessing impressive skills, Large Language Models (LLMs) often fail unpre-dictably, demonstrating inconsistent success in even basic common sense reasoning tasks. This unpredictability poses a significant challenge to ensuring their safe deployment, as identifying and operating within a reliable “safe zone” is essential for mitigating risks. To address this, we present PredictaBoard, a novel collabo-rative benchmarking framework designed to evaluate the ability of score predictors (referred to as assessors) to anticipate LLM errors on specific task instances (i.e., prompts) from existing datasets. PredictaBoard evaluates pairs of LLMs and assessors by considering the rejection rate at different tolerance errors. As such, PredictaBoard stimulates research into developing better assessors and making LLMs more predictable, not only with a higher average performance. We conduct illustrative experiments using baseline assessors and state-of-the-art LLMs. PredictaBoard highlights the critical need to evaluate predictability alongside performance, paving the way for safer AI systems where errors are not only minimised but also anticipated and effectively mitigated. Code for our bench-mark can be found at https://github. com/Kinds-of-Intelligence-CFI/PredictaBoard

Research on dialogue constructiveness assessment focuses on (i) analysing conversational factors that influence individuals to take specific actions, win debates, change their perspectives or broaden their open-mindedness and (ii) predicting constructiveness outcomes following dialogues for such use cases. These objectives can be achieved by training either interpretable feature-based models (which often involve costly human annotations) or neural models such as pre-trained language models (which have empirically shown higher task accuracy but lack interpretability). In this paper we propose an LLM feature-based framework for dialogue constructiveness assessment that combines the strengths of feature-based and neural approaches, while mitigating their downsides. The framework first defines a set of dataset-independent and interpretable linguistic features, which can be extracted by both prompting an LLM and simple heuristics. Such features are then used to train LLM feature-based models. We apply this framework to three datasets of dialogue constructiveness and find that our LLM feature-based models outperform or performs at least as well as standard feature-based models and neural models. We also find that the LLM feature-based model learns more robust prediction rules instead of relying on superficial shortcuts, which often trouble neural models.