Large language models (LLMs) exhibit the ability to generalize given few-shot examples in their input prompt, an emergent capability known as in-context learning (ICL). We investigate whether LLMs use ICL to perform structured reasoning in ways that are consistent with a Bayesian framework or rely on pattern matching. Using a controlled setting of biased coin flips, we find that: (1) LLMs often possess biased priors, causing initial divergence in zero-shot settings, (2) in-context evidence outweighs explicit bias instructions, (3) LLMs broadly follow Bayesian posterior updates, with deviations primarily due to miscalibrated priors rather than flawed updates, and (4) attention magnitude has negligible effect on Bayesian inference. With sufficient demonstrations of biased coin flips via ICL, LLMs update their priors in a Bayesian manner. Code and visualizations are available on the [project page](https://ai-climate.berkeley.edu/llm-coin-flips/).

Large language models (LLMs) are trained from vast repositories of text authored by millions of distinct authors, reflecting an enormous diversity of human traits. While these models bear the potential to be used as approximations of human subjects in behavioral studies, prior efforts have been limited in steering model responses to match individual human users. In this work, we introduce Anthology, a method for conditioning LLMs to particular virtual personas by harnessing open-ended life narratives, which we refer to as backstories. We show that our methodology enhances the consistency and reliability of experimental outcomes while ensuring better representation of diverse sub-populations. Across three nationally representative human surveys conducted as part of Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), we demonstrate that Anthology achieves up to 18% improvement in matching the response distributions of human respondents and 27% improvement in consistency metrics.

Traditional automated metrics for evaluating conditional natural language generation rely on pairwise comparisons between a single generated text and the best-matching gold-standard reference. This method is effective when ground truth data diversity can be attributed to noise, however, it falls short when diversity in references holds valuable contextual information, as in visual description or summarization, as it does not evaluate the ability of a model to generate text matching the diversity of the ground truth samples. In this paper, we challenge the adequacy of existing metrics in such semantically diverse contexts and introduce a novel approach for evaluating conditional language generation models, leveraging a family of meta-metrics that build on existing pairwise distance functions. These meta-metrics assess not just single-samples, but distributions of reference and model-generated captions using small sample sets. We demonstrate our approach through a case study of visual description in the English language which reveals not only how current models prioritize single-description quality over diversity, but further sheds light on the impact of sampling methods and temperature settings on description quality and diversity.

Recent advances in machine learning have demonstrated that multi-modal pre-training can improve automatic speech recognition (ASR) performance compared to randomly initialized models, even when models are fine-tuned on uni-modal tasks. Existing multi-modal pre-training methods for the ASR task have primarily focused on single-stage pre-training where a single unsupervised task is used for pre-training followed by fine-tuning on the downstream task. In this work, we introduce a novel method combining multi-modal and multi-task unsupervised pre-training with a translation-based supervised mid-training approach. We empirically demonstrate that such a multi-stage approach leads to relative word error rate (WER) improvements of up to 38.45% over baselines on both Librispeech and SUPERB. Additionally, we share several important findings for choosing pre-training methods and datasets.