The DOI matches its DataCite record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Primacy Effect of ChatGPT
Open accessAbstract
Instruction-tuned large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, have led to promising zero-shot performance in discriminative natural language understanding (NLU) tasks. This involves querying the LLM using a prompt containing the question, and the candidate labels to choose from. The question-answering capabilities of ChatGPT arise from its pre-training on large amounts of human-written text, as well as its subsequent fine-tuning on human preferences, which motivates us to ask: Does ChatGPT also inherits humans' cognitive biases? In this paper, we study the primacy effect of ChatGPT: the tendency of selecting the labels at earlier positions as the answer. We have two main findings: i) ChatGPT's decision is sensitive to the order of labels in the prompt; ii) ChatGPT has a clearly higher chance to select the labels at earlier positions as the answer. We hope that our experiments and analyses provide additional insights into building more reliable ChatGPT-based solutions. We release the source code at https://github.com/wangywUST/PrimacyEffectGPT.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
LLMs exhibit a primacy effect, often prioritizing earlier information in prompts.
“Additionally, LLMs exhibit a primacy effect, often prioritizing earlier information in prompts [33].”
From Order Matters! An Empirical Study on Large Language Models' Input Order Bias in Software Fault Localization (2024) · cites this paper as [33]
In deductive reasoning tasks, presenting premises in the same order as a ground-truth proof enhances model accuracy, while shuffling them can result in a performance drop of over 30%.
“This phenomenon is particularly evident in deductive reasoning tasks, where presenting premises in the same order as a ground-truth proof enhances model accuracy, while shuffling them can result in a performance drop of over 30%.”
From Order Matters! An Empirical Study on Large Language Models' Input Order Bias in Software Fault Localization (2024) · cites this paper as [33]
Prior research from other domains shows LLMs are sensitive to input order.
“prior research from other domains highlights a sensitivity to the order of input information”
From Order Matters! An Empirical Study on Large Language Models' Input Order Bias in Software Fault Localization (2024) · cites this paper as [33]
LLMs achieve higher accuracy when premises are structured sequentially according to logical reasoning steps, whereas randomized orderings lead to substantial performance drops.
“Studies have shown that LLMs achieve higher accuracy when premises are structured sequentially according to logical reasoning steps, whereas randomized orderings lead to substantial performance drops [7, 33].”
From Order Matters! An Empirical Study on Large Language Models' Input Order Bias in Software Fault Localization (2024) · cites this paper as [33]
Citations
Cites
Fantastically Ordered Prompts and Where to Find Them: Overcoming Few-Shot Prompt Order Sensitivity
Lu, Y., Bartolo, M., Moore, A., Riedel, S., & Stenetorp, P. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2104.08786 · Cited by 615 · cited 1×
“Accordingly, some work investigates the effects of demonstration orders for the LLMs before ChatGPT (Lu et al., 2021).”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Rafi, M. N., Kim, D. J., Chen, T.-H., & Wang, S. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.18750
Metadata
- Authors
- Wang, Y., Cai, Y., Chen, M., Liang, Y., & Hooi, B.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Los Angeles (US)
- University of California, Davis (US)
- National University of Singapore (SG)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- Pages
- 108-115
- arXiv
- 2310.13206
- OpenAlex
- W4389523946
- Cited by
- 13
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3
- FWCI
- 2.13
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Rare & Special e-Zone (The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (2105329, 2333736)
- Cisco Systems
- Ministry of Earth Sciences
- Ministry of Education, India
- Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (N660011924033)
- Office of Naval Research
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Keywords
- primacy effect, ChatGPT, zero-shot classification, cognitive biases, large language models, prompt engineering, natural language understanding
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
