Daily Papers

There is an increasing trend towards evaluating NLP models with LLM-generated judgments instead of human judgments. In the absence of a comparison against human data, this raises concerns about the validity of these evaluations; in case they are conducted with proprietary models, this also raises concerns over reproducibility. We provide JUDGE-BENCH, a collection of 20 NLP datasets with human annotations, and comprehensively evaluate 11 current LLMs, covering both open-weight and proprietary models, for their ability to replicate the annotations. Our evaluations show that each LLM exhibits a large variance across datasets in its correlation to human judgments. We conclude that LLMs are not yet ready to systematically replace human judges in NLP.

Evaluating the capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) in following instructions has heavily relied on a powerful LLM as the judge, introducing unresolved biases that deviate the judgments from human judges. In this work, we reevaluate various choices for automatic evaluation on a wide range of instruction-following tasks. We experiment with methods that leverage human-written responses and observe that they enhance the reliability of automatic evaluations across a wide range of tasks, resulting in up to a 3.2% improvement in agreement with human judges. We also discovered that human-written responses offer an orthogonal perspective to model-generated responses in following instructions and should be used as an additional context when comparing model responses. Based on these observations, we develop a new evaluation benchmark, Human Response-Guided Evaluation of Instruction Following (HREF), comprising 4,258 samples across 11 task categories with a composite evaluation setup, employing a composite evaluation setup that selects the most reliable method for each category. In addition to providing reliable evaluation, HREF emphasizes individual task performance and is free from contamination. Finally, we study the impact of key design choices in HREF, including the size of the evaluation set, the judge model, the baseline model, and the prompt template. We host a live leaderboard that evaluates LLMs on the private evaluation set of HREF.

In this study, we delve into an emerging optimization challenge involving a black-box objective function that can only be gauged via a ranking oracle-a situation frequently encountered in real-world scenarios, especially when the function is evaluated by human judges. Such challenge is inspired from Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback (RLHF), an approach recently employed to enhance the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) using human guidance. We introduce ZO-RankSGD, an innovative zeroth-order optimization algorithm designed to tackle this optimization problem, accompanied by theoretical assurances. Our algorithm utilizes a novel rank-based random estimator to determine the descent direction and guarantees convergence to a stationary point. Moreover, ZO-RankSGD is readily applicable to policy optimization problems in Reinforcement Learning (RL), particularly when only ranking oracles for the episode reward are available. Last but not least, we demonstrate the effectiveness of ZO-RankSGD in a novel application: improving the quality of images generated by a diffusion generative model with human ranking feedback. Throughout experiments, we found that ZO-RankSGD can significantly enhance the detail of generated images with only a few rounds of human feedback. Overall, our work advances the field of zeroth-order optimization by addressing the problem of optimizing functions with only ranking feedback, and offers a new and effective approach for aligning Artificial Intelligence (AI) with human intentions.

The recent years have witnessed great advances in video generation. However, the development of automatic video metrics is lagging significantly behind. None of the existing metric is able to provide reliable scores over generated videos. The main barrier is the lack of large-scale human-annotated dataset. In this paper, we release VideoFeedback, the first large-scale dataset containing human-provided multi-aspect score over 37.6K synthesized videos from 11 existing video generative models. We train MantisScore (initialized from Mantis) based on VideoFeedback to enable automatic video quality assessment. Experiments show that the Spearman correlation between MantisScore and humans can reach 77.1 on VideoFeedback-test, beating the prior best metrics by about 50 points. Further result on other held-out EvalCrafter, GenAI-Bench, and VBench show that MantisScore has consistently much higher correlation with human judges than other metrics. Due to these results, we believe MantisScore can serve as a great proxy for human raters to (1) rate different video models to track progress (2) simulate fine-grained human feedback in Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback (RLHF) to improve current video generation models.

We study the task of long-form opinion text generation, which faces at least two distinct challenges. First, existing neural generation models fall short of coherence, thus requiring efficient content planning. Second, diverse types of information are needed to guide the generator to cover both subjective and objective content. To this end, we propose DYPLOC, a generation framework that conducts dynamic planning of content while generating the output based on a novel design of mixed language models. To enrich the generation with diverse content, we further propose to use large pre-trained models to predict relevant concepts and to generate claims. We experiment with two challenging tasks on newly collected datasets: (1) argument generation with Reddit ChangeMyView, and (2) writing articles using New York Times' Opinion section. Automatic evaluation shows that our model significantly outperforms competitive comparisons. Human judges further confirm that our generations are more coherent with richer content.

We explore story generation: creative systems that can build coherent and fluent passages of text about a topic. We collect a large dataset of 300K human-written stories paired with writing prompts from an online forum. Our dataset enables hierarchical story generation, where the model first generates a premise, and then transforms it into a passage of text. We gain further improvements with a novel form of model fusion that improves the relevance of the story to the prompt, and adding a new gated multi-scale self-attention mechanism to model long-range context. Experiments show large improvements over strong baselines on both automated and human evaluations. Human judges prefer stories generated by our approach to those from a strong non-hierarchical model by a factor of two to one.

The increasing capability of Large Language Models to act as human-like social agents raises two important questions in the area of opinion dynamics. First, whether these agents can generate effective arguments that could be injected into the online discourse to steer the public opinion. Second, whether artificial agents can interact with each other to reproduce dynamics of persuasion typical of human social systems, opening up opportunities for studying synthetic social systems as faithful proxies for opinion dynamics in human populations. To address these questions, we designed a synthetic persuasion dialogue scenario on the topic of climate change, where a 'convincer' agent generates a persuasive argument for a 'skeptic' agent, who subsequently assesses whether the argument changed its internal opinion state. Different types of arguments were generated to incorporate different linguistic dimensions underpinning psycho-linguistic theories of opinion change. We then asked human judges to evaluate the persuasiveness of machine-generated arguments. Arguments that included factual knowledge, markers of trust, expressions of support, and conveyed status were deemed most effective according to both humans and agents, with humans reporting a marked preference for knowledge-based arguments. Our experimental framework lays the groundwork for future in-silico studies of opinion dynamics, and our findings suggest that artificial agents have the potential of playing an important role in collective processes of opinion formation in online social media.

The natural language generation (NLG) component of a spoken dialogue system (SDS) usually needs a substantial amount of handcrafting or a well-labeled dataset to be trained on. These limitations add significantly to development costs and make cross-domain, multi-lingual dialogue systems intractable. Moreover, human languages are context-aware. The most natural response should be directly learned from data rather than depending on predefined syntaxes or rules. This paper presents a statistical language generator based on a joint recurrent and convolutional neural network structure which can be trained on dialogue act-utterance pairs without any semantic alignments or predefined grammar trees. Objective metrics suggest that this new model outperforms previous methods under the same experimental conditions. Results of an evaluation by human judges indicate that it produces not only high quality but linguistically varied utterances which are preferred compared to n-gram and rule-based systems.

This study explores the effectiveness of Large Language Models (LLMs) in creating personalized "mirror stories" that reflect and resonate with individual readers' identities, addressing the significant lack of diversity in literature. We present MirrorStories, a corpus of 1,500 personalized short stories generated by integrating elements such as name, gender, age, ethnicity, reader interest, and story moral. We demonstrate that LLMs can effectively incorporate diverse identity elements into narratives, with human evaluators identifying personalized elements in the stories with high accuracy. Through a comprehensive evaluation involving 26 diverse human judges, we compare the effectiveness of MirrorStories against generic narratives. We find that personalized LLM-generated stories not only outscore generic human-written and LLM-generated ones across all metrics of engagement (with average ratings of 4.22 versus 3.37 on a 5-point scale), but also achieve higher textual diversity while preserving the intended moral. We also provide analyses that include bias assessments and a study on the potential for integrating images into personalized stories.

As large language models (LLMs) continue to advance, accurately and comprehensively evaluating their performance becomes increasingly challenging. Human evaluations are conventionally considered the gold standard in natural language generation, but recent advancements incorporate state-of-the-art LLMs as proxies for human judges in evaluation processes. However, the extent to which humans and LLMs are capable evaluators remains uncertain. This study investigates the behavior of crowd-sourced and expert annotators, as well as LLMs, when comparing outputs from different models. To achieve this, we curate a dataset of intentionally flawed machine-generated answers. Our findings reveal a concerning bias in the evaluation process, as answers with factual errors are rated more favorably than answers that are too short or contained grammatical errors. To address this issue, we propose independently evaluating machine-generated text across multiple dimensions, rather than merging all the evaluation aspects into a single score. We instantiate this idea with the Elo rating system, resulting in the Multi-Elo Rating System. Empirical results from our study reveal that this proposed approach significantly enhances the quality of LLM-based evaluations, particularly in terms of factual accuracy. However, there is no significant improvement in crowd-sourced-based evaluations, indicating the need for further investigation and refinement.

We present a paper abstract writing system based on an attentive neural sequence-to-sequence model that can take a title as input and automatically generate an abstract. We design a novel Writing-editing Network that can attend to both the title and the previously generated abstract drafts and then iteratively revise and polish the abstract. With two series of Turing tests, where the human judges are asked to distinguish the system-generated abstracts from human-written ones, our system passes Turing tests by junior domain experts at a rate up to 30% and by non-expert at a rate up to 80%.

Effective linguistic choices that attract potential customers play crucial roles in advertising success. This study aims to explore the linguistic features of ad texts that influence human preferences. Although the creation of attractive ad texts is an active area of research, progress in understanding the specific linguistic features that affect attractiveness is hindered by several obstacles. First, human preferences are complex and influenced by multiple factors, including their content, such as brand names, and their linguistic styles, making analysis challenging. Second, publicly available ad text datasets that include human preferences are lacking, such as ad performance metrics and human feedback, which reflect people's interests. To address these problems, we present AdParaphrase, a paraphrase dataset that contains human preferences for pairs of ad texts that are semantically equivalent but differ in terms of wording and style. This dataset allows for preference analysis that focuses on the differences in linguistic features. Our analysis revealed that ad texts preferred by human judges have higher fluency, longer length, more nouns, and use of bracket symbols. Furthermore, we demonstrate that an ad text-generation model that considers these findings significantly improves the attractiveness of a given text. The dataset is publicly available at: https://github.com/CyberAgentAILab/AdParaphrase.

Scalable oversight protocols aim to enable humans to accurately supervise superhuman AI. In this paper we study debate, where two AI's compete to convince a judge; consultancy, where a single AI tries to convince a judge that asks questions; and compare to a baseline of direct question-answering, where the judge just answers outright without the AI. We use large language models (LLMs) as both AI agents and as stand-ins for human judges, taking the judge models to be weaker than agent models. We benchmark on a diverse range of asymmetries between judges and agents, extending previous work on a single extractive QA task with information asymmetry, to also include mathematics, coding, logic and multimodal reasoning asymmetries. We find that debate outperforms consultancy across all tasks when the consultant is randomly assigned to argue for the correct/incorrect answer. Comparing debate to direct question answering, the results depend on the type of task: in extractive QA tasks with information asymmetry debate outperforms direct question answering, but in other tasks without information asymmetry the results are mixed. Previous work assigned debaters/consultants an answer to argue for. When we allow them to instead choose which answer to argue for, we find judges are less frequently convinced by the wrong answer in debate than in consultancy. Further, we find that stronger debater models increase judge accuracy, though more modestly than in previous studies.

Question answering (QA) can only make progress if we know if an answer is correct, but for many of the most challenging and interesting QA examples, current evaluation metrics to determine answer equivalence (AE) often do not align with human judgments, particularly more verbose, free-form answers from large language models (LLM). There are two challenges: a lack of data and that models are too big: LLM-based scorers can correlate better with human judges, but this task has only been tested on limited QA datasets, and even when available, update of the model is limited because LLMs are large and often expensive. We rectify both of these issues by providing clear and consistent guidelines for evaluating AE in machine QA adopted from professional human QA contests. We also introduce a combination of standard evaluation and a more efficient, robust, and lightweight discriminate AE classifier-based matching method (CFMatch, smaller than 1 MB), trained and validated to more accurately evaluate answer correctness in accordance with adopted expert AE rules that are more aligned with human judgments.

In the rapidly advancing field of conditional image generation research, challenges such as limited explainability lie in effectively evaluating the performance and capabilities of various models. This paper introduces VIESCORE, a Visual Instruction-guided Explainable metric for evaluating any conditional image generation tasks. VIESCORE leverages general knowledge from Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) as the backbone and does not require training or fine-tuning. We evaluate VIESCORE on seven prominent tasks in conditional image tasks and found: (1) VIESCORE (GPT4-v) achieves a high Spearman correlation of 0.3 with human evaluations, while the human-to-human correlation is 0.45. (2) VIESCORE (with open-source MLLM) is significantly weaker than GPT-4v in evaluating synthetic images. (3) VIESCORE achieves a correlation on par with human ratings in the generation tasks but struggles in editing tasks. With these results, we believe VIESCORE shows its great potential to replace human judges in evaluating image synthesis tasks.

The rapid advancement of language models (LMs) necessitates robust alignment with diverse user values. However, current preference optimization approaches often fail to capture the plurality of user opinions, instead reinforcing majority viewpoints and marginalizing minority perspectives. We introduce PERSONA, a reproducible test bed designed to evaluate and improve pluralistic alignment of LMs. We procedurally generate diverse user profiles from US census data, resulting in 1,586 synthetic personas with varied demographic and idiosyncratic attributes. We then generate a large-scale evaluation dataset containing 3,868 prompts and 317,200 feedback pairs obtained from our synthetic personas. Leveraging this dataset, we systematically evaluate LM capabilities in role-playing diverse users, verified through human judges, and the establishment of both a benchmark, PERSONA Bench, for pluralistic alignment approaches as well as an extensive dataset to create new and future benchmarks. The full dataset and benchmarks are available here: https://www.synthlabs.ai/research/persona.

We introduce methods for discovering and applying sparse feature circuits. These are causally implicated subnetworks of human-interpretable features for explaining language model behaviors. Circuits identified in prior work consist of polysemantic and difficult-to-interpret units like attention heads or neurons, rendering them unsuitable for many downstream applications. In contrast, sparse feature circuits enable detailed understanding of unanticipated mechanisms. Because they are based on fine-grained units, sparse feature circuits are useful for downstream tasks: We introduce SHIFT, where we improve the generalization of a classifier by ablating features that a human judges to be task-irrelevant. Finally, we demonstrate an entirely unsupervised and scalable interpretability pipeline by discovering thousands of sparse feature circuits for automatically discovered model behaviors.

Large language models (LLMs) and small language models (SLMs) are being adopted at remarkable speed, although their safety still remains a serious concern. With the advent of multilingual S/LLMs, the question now becomes a matter of scale: can we expand multilingual safety evaluations of these models with the same velocity at which they are deployed? To this end we introduce RTP-LX, a human-transcreated and human-annotated corpus of toxic prompts and outputs in 28 languages. RTP-LX follows participatory design practices, and a portion of the corpus is especially designed to detect culturally-specific toxic language. We evaluate seven S/LLMs on their ability to detect toxic content in a culturally-sensitive, multilingual scenario. We find that, although they typically score acceptably in terms of accuracy, they have low agreement with human judges when judging holistically the toxicity of a prompt, and have difficulty discerning harm in context-dependent scenarios, particularly with subtle-yet-harmful content (e.g. microagressions, bias). We release of this dataset to contribute to further reduce harmful uses of these models and improve their safe deployment.

Pre-trained models of code have achieved success in many important software engineering tasks. However, these powerful models are vulnerable to adversarial attacks that slightly perturb model inputs to make a victim model produce wrong outputs. Current works mainly attack models of code with examples that preserve operational program semantics but ignore a fundamental requirement for adversarial example generation: perturbations should be natural to human judges, which we refer to as naturalness requirement. In this paper, we propose ALERT (nAturaLnEss AwaRe ATtack), a black-box attack that adversarially transforms inputs to make victim models produce wrong outputs. Different from prior works, this paper considers the natural semantic of generated examples at the same time as preserving the operational semantic of original inputs. Our user study demonstrates that human developers consistently consider that adversarial examples generated by ALERT are more natural than those generated by the state-of-the-art work by Zhang et al. that ignores the naturalness requirement. On attacking CodeBERT, our approach can achieve attack success rates of 53.62%, 27.79%, and 35.78% across three downstream tasks: vulnerability prediction, clone detection and code authorship attribution. On GraphCodeBERT, our approach can achieve average success rates of 76.95%, 7.96% and 61.47% on the three tasks. The above outperforms the baseline by 14.07% and 18.56% on the two pre-trained models on average. Finally, we investigated the value of the generated adversarial examples to harden victim models through an adversarial fine-tuning procedure and demonstrated the accuracy of CodeBERT and GraphCodeBERT against ALERT-generated adversarial examples increased by 87.59% and 92.32%, respectively.

To make AI systems broadly useful for challenging real-world tasks, we need them to learn complex human goals and preferences. One approach to specifying complex goals asks humans to judge during training which agent behaviors are safe and useful, but this approach can fail if the task is too complicated for a human to directly judge. To help address this concern, we propose training agents via self play on a zero sum debate game. Given a question or proposed action, two agents take turns making short statements up to a limit, then a human judges which of the agents gave the most true, useful information. In an analogy to complexity theory, debate with optimal play can answer any question in PSPACE given polynomial time judges (direct judging answers only NP questions). In practice, whether debate works involves empirical questions about humans and the tasks we want AIs to perform, plus theoretical questions about the meaning of AI alignment. We report results on an initial MNIST experiment where agents compete to convince a sparse classifier, boosting the classifier's accuracy from 59.4% to 88.9% given 6 pixels and from 48.2% to 85.2% given 4 pixels. Finally, we discuss theoretical and practical aspects of the debate model, focusing on potential weaknesses as the model scales up, and we propose future human and computer experiments to test these properties.

We present persona-based models for handling the issue of speaker consistency in neural response generation. A speaker model encodes personas in distributed embeddings that capture individual characteristics such as background information and speaking style. A dyadic speaker-addressee model captures properties of interactions between two interlocutors. Our models yield qualitative performance improvements in both perplexity and BLEU scores over baseline sequence-to-sequence models, with similar gains in speaker consistency as measured by human judges.

Automatic evaluation is an integral aspect of dialogue system research. The traditional reference-based NLG metrics are generally found to be unsuitable for dialogue assessment. Consequently, recent studies have suggested various unique, reference-free neural metrics that better align with human evaluations. Notably among them, large language models (LLMs), particularly the instruction-tuned variants like ChatGPT, are shown to be promising substitutes for human judges. Yet, existing works on utilizing LLMs for automatic dialogue evaluation are limited in their scope in terms of the number of meta-evaluation datasets, mode of evaluation, coverage of LLMs, etc. Hence, it remains inconclusive how effective these LLMs are. To this end, we conduct a comprehensive study on the application of LLMs for automatic dialogue evaluation. Specifically, we analyze the multi-dimensional evaluation capability of 30 recently emerged LLMs at both turn and dialogue levels, using a comprehensive set of 12 meta-evaluation datasets. Additionally, we probe the robustness of the LLMs in handling various adversarial perturbations at both turn and dialogue levels. Finally, we explore how model-level and dimension-level ensembles impact the evaluation performance. All resources are available at https://github.com/e0397123/comp-analysis.

Adopting human and large language models (LLM) as judges (a.k.a human- and LLM-as-a-judge) for evaluating the performance of existing LLMs has recently gained attention. Nonetheless, this approach concurrently introduces potential biases from human and LLM judges, questioning the reliability of the evaluation results. In this paper, we propose a novel framework for investigating 5 types of biases for LLM and human judges. We curate a dataset with 142 samples referring to the revised Bloom's Taxonomy and conduct thousands of human and LLM evaluations. Results show that human and LLM judges are vulnerable to perturbations to various degrees, and that even the most cutting-edge judges possess considerable biases. We further exploit their weakness and conduct attacks on LLM judges. We hope that our work can notify the community of the vulnerability of human- and LLM-as-a-judge against perturbations, as well as the urgency of developing robust evaluation systems.

Evaluating large language model (LLM) based chat assistants is challenging due to their broad capabilities and the inadequacy of existing benchmarks in measuring human preferences. To address this, we explore using strong LLMs as judges to evaluate these models on more open-ended questions. We examine the usage and limitations of LLM-as-a-judge, such as position and verbosity biases and limited reasoning ability, and propose solutions to migrate some of them. We then verify the agreement between LLM judges and human preferences by introducing two benchmarks: MT-bench, a multi-turn question set; and Chatbot Arena, a crowdsourced battle platform. Our results reveal that strong LLM judges like GPT-4 can match both controlled and crowdsourced human preferences well, achieving over 80\% agreement, the same level of agreement between humans. Hence, LLM-as-a-judge is a scalable and explainable way to approximate human preferences, which are otherwise very expensive to obtain. Additionally, we show our benchmark and traditional benchmarks complement each other by evaluating several variants of LLaMA/Vicuna. We will publicly release 80 MT-bench questions, 3K expert votes, and 30K conversations with human preferences from Chatbot Arena.

Test set contamination, wherein test data from a benchmark ends up in a newer model's training set, is a well-documented obstacle for fair LLM evaluation and can quickly render benchmarks obsolete. To mitigate this, many recent benchmarks crowdsource new prompts and evaluations from human or LLM judges; however, these can introduce significant biases, and break down when scoring hard questions. In this work, we introduce a new benchmark for LLMs designed to be immune to both test set contamination and the pitfalls of LLM judging and human crowdsourcing. We release LiveBench, the first benchmark that (1) contains frequently-updated questions from recent information sources, (2) scores answers automatically according to objective ground-truth values, and (3) contains a wide variety of challenging tasks, spanning math, coding, reasoning, language, instruction following, and data analysis. To achieve this, LiveBench contains questions that are based on recently-released math competitions, arXiv papers, news articles, and datasets, and it contains harder, contamination-free versions of tasks from previous benchmarks such as Big-Bench Hard, AMPS, and IFEval. We evaluate many prominent closed-source models, as well as dozens of open-source models ranging from 0.5B to 110B in size. LiveBench is difficult, with top models achieving below 65% accuracy. We release all questions, code, and model answers. Questions will be added and updated on a monthly basis, and we will release new tasks and harder versions of tasks over time so that LiveBench can distinguish between the capabilities of LLMs as they improve in the future. We welcome community engagement and collaboration for expanding the benchmark tasks and models.

Reasoning has long been viewed as an emergent property of large language models (LLMs), appearing at or above a certain scale (sim100B parameters). However, recent studies challenge this assumption, showing that small language models (SLMs) can also achieve competitive reasoning performance. SLMs are increasingly favored for their efficiency and deployability. However, there is a lack of systematic study on the reasoning abilities of diverse SLMs, including those trained from scratch or derived from LLMs through quantization, pruning, and distillation. This raises a critical question: Can SLMs achieve reasoning abilities comparable to LLMs? In this work, we systematically survey, benchmark, and analyze 72 SLMs from six model families across 14 reasoning benchmarks. For reliable evaluation, we examine four evaluation methods and compare four LLM judges against human evaluations on 800 data points. We repeat all experiments three times to ensure a robust performance assessment. Additionally, we analyze the impact of different prompting strategies in small models. Beyond accuracy, we also evaluate model robustness under adversarial conditions and intermediate reasoning steps. Our findings challenge the assumption that scaling is the only way to achieve strong reasoning. Instead, we foresee a future where SLMs with strong reasoning capabilities can be developed through structured training or post-training compression. They can serve as efficient alternatives to LLMs for reasoning-intensive tasks.

We present a principled approach to provide LLM-based evaluation with a rigorous guarantee of human agreement. We first propose that a reliable evaluation method should not uncritically rely on model preferences for pairwise evaluation, but rather assess the confidence of judge models and selectively decide when to trust its judgement. We then show that under this selective evaluation framework, human agreement can be provably guaranteed -- such that the model evaluation aligns with that of humans to a user-specified agreement level. As part of our framework, we also introduce Simulated Annotators, a novel confidence estimation method that significantly improves judge calibration and thus enables high coverage of evaluated instances. Finally, we propose Cascaded Selective Evaluation, where we use cheaper models as initial judges and escalate to stronger models only when necessary -- again, while still providing a provable guarantee of human agreement. Experimental results show that Cascaded Selective Evaluation guarantees strong alignment with humans, far beyond what LLM judges could achieve without selective evaluation. For example, on a subset of Chatbot Arena where GPT-4 almost never achieves 80% human agreement, our method, even while employing substantially cost-effective models such as Mistral-7B, guarantees over 80% human agreement with almost 80% test coverage.

LLM-based judges have emerged as a scalable alternative to human evaluation and are increasingly used to assess, compare, and improve models. However, the reliability of LLM-based judges themselves is rarely scrutinized. As LLMs become more advanced, their responses grow more sophisticated, requiring stronger judges to evaluate them. Existing benchmarks primarily focus on a judge's alignment with human preferences, but often fail to account for more challenging tasks where crowdsourced human preference is a poor indicator of factual and logical correctness. To address this, we propose a novel evaluation framework to objectively evaluate LLM-based judges. Based on this framework, we propose JudgeBench, a benchmark for evaluating LLM-based judges on challenging response pairs spanning knowledge, reasoning, math, and coding. JudgeBench leverages a novel pipeline for converting existing difficult datasets into challenging response pairs with preference labels reflecting objective correctness. Our comprehensive evaluation on a collection of prompted judges, fine-tuned judges, multi-agent judges, and reward models shows that JudgeBench poses a significantly greater challenge than previous benchmarks, with many strong models (e.g., GPT-4o) performing just slightly better than random guessing. Overall, JudgeBench offers a reliable platform for assessing increasingly advanced LLM-based judges. Data and code are available at https://github.com/ScalerLab/JudgeBench .

Offering a promising solution to the scalability challenges associated with human evaluation, the LLM-as-a-judge paradigm is rapidly gaining traction as an approach to evaluating large language models (LLMs). However, there are still many open questions about the strengths and weaknesses of this paradigm, and what potential biases it may hold. In this paper, we present a comprehensive study of the performance of various LLMs acting as judges. We leverage TriviaQA as a benchmark for assessing objective knowledge reasoning of LLMs and evaluate them alongside human annotations which we found to have a high inter-annotator agreement. Our study includes 9 judge models and 9 exam taker models -- both base and instruction-tuned. We assess the judge model's alignment across different model sizes, families, and judge prompts. Among other results, our research rediscovers the importance of using Cohen's kappa as a metric of alignment as opposed to simple percent agreement, showing that judges with high percent agreement can still assign vastly different scores. We find that both Llama-3 70B and GPT-4 Turbo have an excellent alignment with humans, but in terms of ranking exam taker models, they are outperformed by both JudgeLM-7B and the lexical judge Contains, which have up to 34 points lower human alignment. Through error analysis and various other studies, including the effects of instruction length and leniency bias, we hope to provide valuable lessons for using LLMs as judges in the future.

Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) has become the leading approach for fine-tuning large language models (LLM). However, RLHF has limitations in multi-task learning (MTL) due to challenges of reward hacking and extreme multi-objective optimization (i.e., trade-off of multiple and/or sometimes conflicting objectives). Applying RLHF for MTL currently requires careful tuning of the weights for reward model and data combinations. This is often done via human intuition and does not generalize. In this work, we introduce a novel post-training paradigm which we called Constrained Generative Policy Optimization (CGPO). The core of CGPO is Mixture of Judges (MoJ) with cost-efficient constrained policy optimization with stratification, which can identify the perfect blend in RLHF in a principled manner. It shows strong empirical results with theoretical guarantees, does not require extensive hyper-parameter tuning, and is plug-and-play in common post-training pipelines. Together, this can detect and mitigate reward hacking behaviors while reaching a pareto-optimal point across an extremely large number of objectives. Our empirical evaluations demonstrate that CGPO significantly outperforms standard RLHF algorithms like PPO and DPO across various tasks including general chat, STEM questions, instruction following, and coding. Specifically, CGPO shows improvements of 7.4% in AlpacaEval-2 (general chat), 12.5% in Arena-Hard (STEM & reasoning), and consistent gains in other domains like math and coding. Notably, PPO, while commonly used, is prone to severe reward hacking in popular coding benchmarks, which CGPO successfully addresses. This breakthrough in RLHF not only tackles reward hacking and extreme multi-objective optimization challenges but also advances the state-of-the-art in aligning general-purpose LLMs for diverse applications.

The emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) as chat assistants capable of generating human-like conversations has amplified the need for robust evaluation methods, particularly for open-ended tasks. Conventional metrics like BLEU and ROUGE, while useful, are increasingly inadequate for capturing the subtle semantics and contextual richness of such generative outputs. We propose a reference-guided verdict method that automates the evaluation process by leveraging multiple LLMs-as-judges. Through experiments on three open-ended question-answering tasks, we demonstrate that combining multiple LLMs-as-judges significantly improves the reliability and accuracy of evaluations, particularly in complex tasks where a single model might struggle. Our findings reveal a strong correlation with human evaluations, establishing our method as a viable and effective alternative to traditional metrics and human judgments, particularly in the context of LLM-based chat assistants where the complexity and diversity of responses challenge existing benchmarks.

Rapid advancements in large language models have unlocked remarkable capabilities when it comes to processing and summarizing unstructured text data. This has implications for the analysis of rich, open-ended datasets, such as survey responses, where LLMs hold the promise of efficiently distilling key themes and sentiments. However, as organizations increasingly turn to these powerful AI systems to make sense of textual feedback, a critical question arises, can we trust LLMs to accurately represent the perspectives contained within these text based datasets? While LLMs excel at generating human-like summaries, there is a risk that their outputs may inadvertently diverge from the true substance of the original responses. Discrepancies between the LLM-generated outputs and the actual themes present in the data could lead to flawed decision-making, with far-reaching consequences for organizations. This research investigates the effectiveness of LLMs as judge models to evaluate the thematic alignment of summaries generated by other LLMs. We utilized an Anthropic Claude model to generate thematic summaries from open-ended survey responses, with Amazon's Titan Express, Nova Pro, and Meta's Llama serving as LLM judges. The LLM-as-judge approach was compared to human evaluations using Cohen's kappa, Spearman's rho, and Krippendorff's alpha, validating a scalable alternative to traditional human centric evaluation methods. Our findings reveal that while LLMs as judges offer a scalable solution comparable to human raters, humans may still excel at detecting subtle, context-specific nuances. This research contributes to the growing body of knowledge on AI assisted text analysis. We discuss limitations and provide recommendations for future research, emphasizing the need for careful consideration when generalizing LLM judge models across various contexts and use cases.

As multi-modal large language models (MLLMs) frequently exhibit errors when solving scientific problems, evaluating the validity of their reasoning processes is critical for ensuring reliability and uncovering fine-grained model weaknesses. Since human evaluation is laborious and costly, prompting MLLMs as automated process judges has become a common practice. However, the reliability of these model-based judges remains uncertain. To address this, we introduce ProJudgeBench, the first comprehensive benchmark specifically designed for evaluating abilities of MLLM-based process judges. ProJudgeBench comprises 2,400 test cases and 50,118 step-level labels, spanning four scientific disciplines with diverse difficulty levels and multi-modal content. In ProJudgeBench, each step is meticulously annotated by human experts for correctness, error type, and explanation, enabling a systematic evaluation of judges' capabilities to detect, classify and diagnose errors. Evaluation on ProJudgeBench reveals a significant performance gap between open-source and proprietary models. To bridge this gap, we further propose ProJudge-173k, a large-scale instruction-tuning dataset, and a Dynamic Dual-Phase fine-tuning strategy that encourages models to explicitly reason through problem-solving before assessing solutions. Both contributions significantly enhance the process evaluation capabilities of open-source models. All the resources will be released to foster future research of reliable multi-modal process evaluation.

LLM-as-a-Judge is a framework that uses an LLM (large language model) to evaluate the quality of natural language text - typically text that is also generated by an LLM. This framework holds great promise due to its relative low-cost, ease of use, and strong correlations with human stylistic preferences. However, LLM Judges have been shown to exhibit biases that can distort their judgments. We evaluate how well LLM Judges can grade whether a given response to a conversational question is correct, an ability crucial to soundly estimating the overall response quality. To do so, we create and publicly release a human-annotated dataset with labels of correctness for 1,200 LLM responses. We source questions from a combination of existing datasets and a novel, challenging benchmark (BFF-Bench) created for this analysis. We demonstrate a strong connection between an LLM's ability to correctly answer a question and grade responses to that question. Although aggregate level statistics might imply a judge has high agreement with human annotators, it will struggle on the subset of questions it could not answer. To address this issue, we recommend a simple solution: provide the judge with a correct, human-written reference answer. We perform an in-depth analysis on how reference quality can affect the performance of an LLM Judge. We show that providing a weaker judge (e.g. Qwen 2.5 7B) with higher quality references reaches better agreement with human annotators than a stronger judge (e.g. GPT-4o) with synthetic references.

The release of ChatGPT in November 2022 sparked an explosion of interest in post-training and an avalanche of new preference optimization (PO) methods. These methods claim superior alignment by virtue of better correspondence with human pairwise preferences, often measured by LLM judges. In this work, we attempt to answer the following question -- do LLM-judge preferences translate to progress on other, more concrete metrics for alignment, and if not, why not? We define a concrete metric for alignment, and introduce SOS-Bench, the largest standardized, reproducible LLM meta-benchmark to date. We find that (1) LLM-judgments do not correlate with concrete measures of safety, world knowledge, and instruction following; (2) LLM judges have powerful implicit biases, prioritizing style over factuality and safety; and (3) the supervised fine-tuning (SFT) stage of post-training, and not the PO stage, has the greatest impact on alignment, with data scaling and prompt diversity as the driving factors. Our codebase and complete results can be found at https://github.com/penfever/sos-bench.

As a relative quality comparison of model responses, human and Large Language Model (LLM) preferences serve as common alignment goals in model fine-tuning and criteria in evaluation. Yet, these preferences merely reflect broad tendencies, resulting in less explainable and controllable models with potential safety risks. In this work, we dissect the preferences of human and 32 different LLMs to understand their quantitative composition, using annotations from real-world user-model conversations for a fine-grained, scenario-wise analysis. We find that humans are less sensitive to errors, favor responses that support their stances, and show clear dislike when models admit their limits. On the contrary, advanced LLMs like GPT-4-Turbo emphasize correctness, clarity, and harmlessness more. Additionally, LLMs of similar sizes tend to exhibit similar preferences, regardless of their training methods, and fine-tuning for alignment does not significantly alter the preferences of pretrained-only LLMs. Finally, we show that preference-based evaluation can be intentionally manipulated. In both training-free and training-based settings, aligning a model with the preferences of judges boosts scores, while injecting the least preferred properties lowers them. This results in notable score shifts: up to 0.59 on MT-Bench (1-10 scale) and 31.94 on AlpacaEval 2.0 (0-100 scale), highlighting the significant impact of this strategic adaptation. Interactive Demo: https://huggingface.co/spaces/GAIR/Preference-Dissection-Visualization Dataset: https://huggingface.co/datasets/GAIR/preference-dissection Code: https://github.com/GAIR-NLP/Preference-Dissection

Using Large Language Models (LLMs) for relevance assessments offers promising opportunities to improve Information Retrieval (IR), Natural Language Processing (NLP), and related fields. Indeed, LLMs hold the promise of allowing IR experimenters to build evaluation collections with a fraction of the manual human labor currently required. This could help with fresh topics on which there is still limited knowledge and could mitigate the challenges of evaluating ranking systems in low-resource scenarios, where it is challenging to find human annotators. Given the fast-paced recent developments in the domain, many questions concerning LLMs as assessors are yet to be answered. Among the aspects that require further investigation, we can list the impact of various components in a relevance judgment generation pipeline, such as the prompt used or the LLM chosen. This paper benchmarks and reports on the results of a large-scale automatic relevance judgment evaluation, the LLMJudge challenge at SIGIR 2024, where different relevance assessment approaches were proposed. In detail, we release and benchmark 42 LLM-generated labels of the TREC 2023 Deep Learning track relevance judgments produced by eight international teams who participated in the challenge. Given their diverse nature, these automatically generated relevance judgments can help the community not only investigate systematic biases caused by LLMs but also explore the effectiveness of ensemble models, analyze the trade-offs between different models and human assessors, and advance methodologies for improving automated evaluation techniques. The released resource is available at the following link: https://llm4eval.github.io/LLMJudge-benchmark/

Evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) in open-ended scenarios is challenging because existing benchmarks and metrics can not measure them comprehensively. To address this problem, we propose to fine-tune LLMs as scalable judges (JudgeLM) to evaluate LLMs efficiently and effectively in open-ended benchmarks. We first propose a comprehensive, large-scale, high-quality dataset containing task seeds, LLMs-generated answers, and GPT-4-generated judgments for fine-tuning high-performance judges, as well as a new benchmark for evaluating the judges. We train JudgeLM at different scales from 7B, 13B, to 33B parameters, and conduct a systematic analysis of its capabilities and behaviors. We then analyze the key biases in fine-tuning LLM as a judge and consider them as position bias, knowledge bias, and format bias. To address these issues, JudgeLM introduces a bag of techniques including swap augmentation, reference support, and reference drop, which clearly enhance the judge's performance. JudgeLM obtains the state-of-the-art judge performance on both the existing PandaLM benchmark and our proposed new benchmark. Our JudgeLM is efficient and the JudgeLM-7B only needs 3 minutes to judge 5K samples with 8 A100 GPUs. JudgeLM obtains high agreement with the teacher judge, achieving an agreement exceeding 90% that even surpasses human-to-human agreement. JudgeLM also demonstrates extended capabilities in being judges of the single answer, multimodal models, multiple answers, and multi-turn chat.

Given the rapid progress of generative AI, there is a pressing need to systematically compare and choose between the numerous models and configurations available. The scale and versatility of such evaluations make the use of LLM-based judges a compelling solution for this challenge. Crucially, this approach requires first to validate the quality of the LLM judge itself. Previous work has focused on instance-based assessment of LLM judges, where a judge is evaluated over a set of responses, or response pairs, while being agnostic to their source systems. We argue that this setting overlooks critical factors affecting system-level ranking, such as a judge's positive or negative bias towards certain systems. To address this gap, we conduct the first large-scale study of LLM judges as system rankers. System scores are generated by aggregating judgment scores over multiple system outputs, and the judge's quality is assessed by comparing the resulting system ranking to a human-based ranking. Beyond overall judge assessment, our analysis provides a fine-grained characterization of judge behavior, including their decisiveness and bias.

With the increasing code reasoning capabilities of existing large language models (LLMs) and breakthroughs in reasoning models like OpenAI o1 and o3, there is a growing need to develop more challenging and comprehensive benchmarks that effectively test their sophisticated competition-level coding abilities. Existing benchmarks, like LiveCodeBench and USACO, fall short due to the unavailability of private test cases, lack of support for special judges, and misaligned execution environments. To bridge this gap, we introduce CodeElo, a standardized competition-level code generation benchmark that effectively addresses all these challenges for the first time. CodeElo benchmark is mainly based on the official CodeForces platform and tries to align with the platform as much as possible. We compile the recent six months of contest problems on CodeForces with detailed information such as contest divisions, problem difficulty ratings, and problem algorithm tags. We introduce a unique judging method in which problems are submitted directly to the platform and develop a reliable Elo rating calculation system that aligns with the platform and is comparable with human participants but has lower variance. By testing on our CodeElo, we provide the Elo ratings of 30 existing popular open-source and 3 proprietary LLMs for the first time. The results show that o1-mini and QwQ-32B-Preview stand out significantly, achieving Elo ratings of 1578 and 1261, respectively, while other models struggle even with the easiest problems, placing in the lowest 20 percent among all human participants. Detailed analysis experiments are also conducted to provide insights into performance across algorithms and comparisons between using C++ and Python, which can suggest directions for future studies.

The "LLM-as-a-judge" paradigm employs Large Language Models (LLMs) as annotators and evaluators in tasks traditionally performed by humans. LLM annotations are widely used, not only in NLP research but also in fields like medicine, psychology, and social science. Despite their role in shaping study results and insights, there is no standard or rigorous procedure to determine whether LLMs can replace human annotators. In this paper, we propose a novel statistical procedure -- the Alternative Annotator Test (alt-test) -- that requires only a modest subset of annotated examples to justify using LLM annotations. Additionally, we introduce a versatile and interpretable measure for comparing LLM judges. To demonstrate our procedure, we curated a diverse collection of ten datasets, consisting of language and vision-language tasks, and conducted experiments with six LLMs and four prompting techniques. Our results show that LLMs can sometimes replace humans with closed-source LLMs (such as GPT-4o), outperforming open-source LLMs, and that prompting techniques yield judges of varying quality. We hope this study encourages more rigorous and reliable practices.

General-purpose LLM judges capable of human-level evaluation provide not only a scalable and accurate way of evaluating instruction-following LLMs but also new avenues for supervising and improving their performance. One promising way of leveraging LLM judges for supervision is through Minimum Bayes Risk (MBR) decoding, which uses a reference-based evaluator to select a high-quality output from amongst a set of candidate outputs. In the first part of this work, we explore using MBR decoding as a method for improving the test-time performance of instruction-following LLMs. We find that MBR decoding with reference-based LLM judges substantially improves over greedy decoding, best-of-N decoding with reference-free judges and MBR decoding with lexical and embedding-based metrics on AlpacaEval and MT-Bench. These gains are consistent across LLMs with up to 70B parameters, demonstrating that smaller LLM judges can be used to supervise much larger LLMs. Then, seeking to retain the improvements from MBR decoding while mitigating additional test-time costs, we explore iterative self-training on MBR-decoded outputs. We find that self-training using Direct Preference Optimisation leads to significant performance gains, such that the self-trained models with greedy decoding generally match and sometimes exceed the performance of their base models with MBR decoding.

In legal decisions, split votes (SV) occur when judges cannot reach a unanimous decision, posing a difficulty for lawyers who must navigate diverse legal arguments and opinions. In high-stakes domains, understanding the alignment of perceived difficulty between humans and AI systems is crucial to build trust. However, existing NLP calibration methods focus on a classifier's awareness of predictive performance, measured against the human majority class, overlooking inherent human label variation (HLV). This paper explores split votes as naturally observable human disagreement and value pluralism. We collect judges' vote distributions from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), and present SV-ECHR, a case outcome classification (COC) dataset with SV information. We build a taxonomy of disagreement with SV-specific subcategories. We further assess the alignment of perceived difficulty between models and humans, as well as confidence- and human-calibration of COC models. We observe limited alignment with the judge vote distribution. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic exploration of calibration to human judgements in legal NLP. Our study underscores the necessity for further research on measuring and enhancing model calibration considering HLV in legal decision tasks.

While text-to-image models like DALLE-3 and Stable Diffusion are rapidly proliferating, they often encounter challenges such as hallucination, bias, and the production of unsafe, low-quality output. To effectively address these issues, it is crucial to align these models with desired behaviors based on feedback from a multimodal judge. Despite their significance, current multimodal judges frequently undergo inadequate evaluation of their capabilities and limitations, potentially leading to misalignment and unsafe fine-tuning outcomes. To address this issue, we introduce MJ-Bench, a novel benchmark which incorporates a comprehensive preference dataset to evaluate multimodal judges in providing feedback for image generation models across four key perspectives: alignment, safety, image quality, and bias. Specifically, we evaluate a large variety of multimodal judges including smaller-sized CLIP-based scoring models, open-source VLMs (e.g. LLaVA family), and close-source VLMs (e.g. GPT-4o, Claude 3) on each decomposed subcategory of our preference dataset. Experiments reveal that close-source VLMs generally provide better feedback, with GPT-4o outperforming other judges in average. Compared with open-source VLMs, smaller-sized scoring models can provide better feedback regarding text-image alignment and image quality, while VLMs provide more accurate feedback regarding safety and generation bias due to their stronger reasoning capabilities. Further studies in feedback scale reveal that VLM judges can generally provide more accurate and stable feedback in natural language (Likert-scale) than numerical scales. Notably, human evaluations on end-to-end fine-tuned models using separate feedback from these multimodal judges provide similar conclusions, further confirming the effectiveness of MJ-Bench. All data, code, models are available at https://huggingface.co/MJ-Bench.

Preference tuning of large language models (LLMs) relies on high-quality human preference data, which is often expensive and time-consuming to gather. While existing methods can use trained reward models or proprietary model as judges for preference annotation, they have notable drawbacks: training reward models remain dependent on initial human data, and using proprietary model imposes license restrictions that inhibits commercial usage. In this paper, we introduce customized density ratio (CDR), a training-free and highly effective method that leverages off-the-shelf LLMs for preference data annotation. Our approach uses the log-density ratio between a better-aligned LLM and a less aligned LLM as a reward signal. We explores 221 different LLMs pairs and empirically demonstrate that increasing the performance gap between paired LLMs correlates with better reward generalization. Furthermore, we show that tailoring the density ratio reward function with specific criteria and preference exemplars enhances performance across domains and within target areas. In our experiment using density ratio from a pair of Mistral-7B models, CDR achieves a RewardBench score of 82.6, outperforming the best trained reward functions from same model class and demonstrating competitive performance against SoTA models in Safety (91.0) and Reasoning (88.0) domains. We use CDR to annotate an on-policy preference dataset with which we preference tune Llama-3-8B-Instruct with SimPO. Using reward signals from two relatively weak models, our approach pushes Llama-3-8B to achieve a 37.4% (+15.1%) win rate on ArenaHard and a 40.7% (+17.8%) win rate on Length-Controlled AlpacaEval 2.0, along with a score of 8.0 on MT-Bench.

We present two comprehensive benchmarks to evaluate the performance of language models in coding assistance tasks, covering code writing, debugging, code review, and conceptual understanding. Our main contribution includes two curated datasets: StackEval, a large-scale benchmark derived from Stack Overflow questions, and StackUnseen, a dynamic benchmark featuring the most recent Stack Overflow content. These benchmarks offer novel insights into the capabilities and limitations of LLMs, particularly in handling new and emerging content. Additionally, we assess LLMs' proficiency as judges for coding tasks using a curated, human-annotated dataset, exploring their evaluation capabilities and potential biases, including whether they favor their own generated solutions. Our findings underscore the potential of these benchmarks to advance LLM development and application in coding assistance. To ensure reproducibility, we publicly share our datasets and evaluation code at https://github.com/ProsusAI/stack-eval .

Evaluating instruction following capabilities for multimodal, multi-turn dialogue is challenging. With potentially multiple instructions in the input model context, the task is time-consuming for human raters and we show LLM based judges are biased towards answers from the same model. We propose MMMT-IF, an image based multi-turn Q&A evaluation set with added global instructions between questions, constraining the answer format. This challenges models to retrieve instructions dispersed across long dialogues and reason under instruction constraints. All instructions are objectively verifiable through code execution. We introduce the Programmatic Instruction Following (PIF) metric to measure the fraction of the instructions that are correctly followed while performing a reasoning task. The PIF-N-K set of metrics further evaluates robustness by measuring the fraction of samples in a corpus where, for each sample, at least K out of N generated model responses achieve a PIF score of one. The PIF metric aligns with human instruction following ratings, showing 60 percent correlation. Experiments show Gemini 1.5 Pro, GPT-4o, and Claude 3.5 Sonnet, have a PIF metric that drops from 0.81 on average at turn 1 across the models, to 0.64 at turn 20. Across all turns, when each response is repeated 4 times (PIF-4-4), GPT-4o and Gemini successfully follow all instructions only 11% of the time. When all the instructions are also appended to the end of the model input context, the PIF metric improves by 22.3 points on average, showing that the challenge with the task lies not only in following the instructions, but also in retrieving the instructions spread out in the model context. We plan to open source the MMMT-IF dataset and metric computation code.

Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs), due to the remarkable visual reasoning ability to understand images and videos, have received widespread attention in the autonomous driving domain, which significantly advances the development of interpretable end-to-end autonomous driving. However, current evaluations of LVLMs primarily focus on the multi-faceted capabilities in common scenarios, lacking quantifiable and automated assessment in autonomous driving contexts, let alone severe road corner cases that even the state-of-the-art autonomous driving perception systems struggle to handle. In this paper, we propose CODA-LM, a novel vision-language benchmark for self-driving, which provides the first automatic and quantitative evaluation of LVLMs for interpretable autonomous driving including general perception, regional perception, and driving suggestions. CODA-LM utilizes the texts to describe the road images, exploiting powerful text-only large language models (LLMs) without image inputs to assess the capabilities of LVLMs in autonomous driving scenarios, which reveals stronger alignment with human preferences than LVLM judges. Experiments demonstrate that even the closed-sourced commercial LVLMs like GPT-4V cannot deal with road corner cases well, suggesting that we are still far from a strong LVLM-powered intelligent driving agent, and we hope our CODA-LM can become the catalyst to promote future development.

Generative AI based art has proliferated in the past year, with increasingly impressive use cases from generating fake human faces to the creation of systems that can generate thousands of artistic images from text prompts - some of these images have even been "good" enough to win accolades from qualified judges. In this paper, we explore how Generative Models have impacted artistry, not only from a qualitative point of view, but also from an angle of exploitation of artists -- both via plagiarism, where models are trained on their artwork without permission, and via profit shifting, where profits in the art market have shifted from art creators to model owners. However, we posit that if deployed responsibly, AI generative models have the possibility of being a positive, new modality in art that does not displace or harm existing artists.

The scarcity of comprehensive up-to-date studies on evaluation metrics for text summarization and the lack of consensus regarding evaluation protocols continue to inhibit progress. We address the existing shortcomings of summarization evaluation methods along five dimensions: 1) we re-evaluate 14 automatic evaluation metrics in a comprehensive and consistent fashion using neural summarization model outputs along with expert and crowd-sourced human annotations, 2) we consistently benchmark 23 recent summarization models using the aforementioned automatic evaluation metrics, 3) we assemble the largest collection of summaries generated by models trained on the CNN/DailyMail news dataset and share it in a unified format, 4) we implement and share a toolkit that provides an extensible and unified API for evaluating summarization models across a broad range of automatic metrics, 5) we assemble and share the largest and most diverse, in terms of model types, collection of human judgments of model-generated summaries on the CNN/Daily Mail dataset annotated by both expert judges and crowd-source workers. We hope that this work will help promote a more complete evaluation protocol for text summarization as well as advance research in developing evaluation metrics that better correlate with human judgments.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated promising capabilities as automatic evaluators in assessing the quality of generated natural language. However, LLMs still exhibit biases in evaluation and often struggle to generate coherent evaluations that align with human assessments. In this work, we first conduct a systematic study of the misalignment between LLM evaluators and human judgement, revealing that existing calibration methods aimed at mitigating biases are insufficient for effectively aligning LLM evaluators. Inspired by the use of preference data in RLHF, we formulate the evaluation as a ranking problem and introduce Pairwise-preference Search (PairS), an uncertainty-guided search method that employs LLMs to conduct pairwise comparisons and efficiently ranks candidate texts. PairS achieves state-of-the-art performance on representative evaluation tasks and demonstrates significant improvements over direct scoring. Furthermore, we provide insights into the role of pairwise preference in quantifying the transitivity of LLMs and demonstrate how PairS benefits from calibration.

We present Sparrow, an information-seeking dialogue agent trained to be more helpful, correct, and harmless compared to prompted language model baselines. We use reinforcement learning from human feedback to train our models with two new additions to help human raters judge agent behaviour. First, to make our agent more helpful and harmless, we break down the requirements for good dialogue into natural language rules the agent should follow, and ask raters about each rule separately. We demonstrate that this breakdown enables us to collect more targeted human judgements of agent behaviour and allows for more efficient rule-conditional reward models. Second, our agent provides evidence from sources supporting factual claims when collecting preference judgements over model statements. For factual questions, evidence provided by Sparrow supports the sampled response 78% of the time. Sparrow is preferred more often than baselines while being more resilient to adversarial probing by humans, violating our rules only 8% of the time when probed. Finally, we conduct extensive analyses showing that though our model learns to follow our rules it can exhibit distributional biases.

The research field of Legal Natural Language Processing (NLP) has been very active recently, with Legal Judgment Prediction (LJP) becoming one of the most extensively studied tasks. To date, most publicly released LJP datasets originate from countries with civil law. In this work, we release, for the first time, a challenging LJP dataset focused on class action cases in the US. It is the first dataset in the common law system that focuses on the harder and more realistic task involving the complaints as input instead of the often used facts summary written by the court. Additionally, we study the difficulty of the task by collecting expert human predictions, showing that even human experts can only reach 53% accuracy on this dataset. Our Longformer model clearly outperforms the human baseline (63%), despite only considering the first 2,048 tokens. Furthermore, we perform a detailed error analysis and find that the Longformer model is significantly better calibrated than the human experts. Finally, we publicly release the dataset and the code used for the experiments.

We present a novel Transformer-based multi-agent system for simulating the judicial rulings of the 2010-2016 Supreme Court of the United States. We train nine separate models with the respective authored opinions of each supreme justice active ca. 2015 and test the resulting system on 96 real-world cases. We find our system predicts the decisions of the real-world Supreme Court with better-than-random accuracy. We further find a correlation between model accuracy with respect to individual justices and their alignment between legal conservatism & liberalism. Our methods and results hold significance for researchers interested in using language models to simulate politically-charged discourse between multiple agents.

Understanding emotions is fundamental to human interaction and experience. Humans easily infer emotions from situations or facial expressions, situations from emotions, and do a variety of other affective cognition. How adept is modern AI at these inferences? We introduce an evaluation framework for testing affective cognition in foundation models. Starting from psychological theory, we generate 1,280 diverse scenarios exploring relationships between appraisals, emotions, expressions, and outcomes. We evaluate the abilities of foundation models (GPT-4, Claude-3, Gemini-1.5-Pro) and humans (N = 567) across carefully selected conditions. Our results show foundation models tend to agree with human intuitions, matching or exceeding interparticipant agreement. In some conditions, models are ``superhuman'' -- they better predict modal human judgements than the average human. All models benefit from chain-of-thought reasoning. This suggests foundation models have acquired a human-like understanding of emotions and their influence on beliefs and behavior.

Evaluating the open-ended text generation of large language models (LLMs) is challenging because of the lack of a clear ground truth and the high cost of human or LLM-based assessments. We propose a novel benchmark that evaluates LLMs using n-gram statistics and rules, without relying on human judgement or LLM-as-a-judge approaches. Using 50 question and reference answer sets, we introduce three new metrics based on n-grams and rules: Fluency, Truthfulness, and Helpfulness. Our benchmark strongly correlates with GPT-4o-based evaluations while requiring significantly fewer computational resources, demonstrating its effectiveness as a scalable alternative for assessing LLMs' open-ended generation capabilities.

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have sparked optimism about their potential to accelerate scientific discovery, with a growing number of works proposing research agents that autonomously generate and validate new ideas. Despite this, no evaluations have shown that LLM systems can take the very first step of producing novel, expert-level ideas, let alone perform the entire research process. We address this by establishing an experimental design that evaluates research idea generation while controlling for confounders and performs the first head-to-head comparison between expert NLP researchers and an LLM ideation agent. By recruiting over 100 NLP researchers to write novel ideas and blind reviews of both LLM and human ideas, we obtain the first statistically significant conclusion on current LLM capabilities for research ideation: we find LLM-generated ideas are judged as more novel (p < 0.05) than human expert ideas while being judged slightly weaker on feasibility. Studying our agent baselines closely, we identify open problems in building and evaluating research agents, including failures of LLM self-evaluation and their lack of diversity in generation. Finally, we acknowledge that human judgements of novelty can be difficult, even by experts, and propose an end-to-end study design which recruits researchers to execute these ideas into full projects, enabling us to study whether these novelty and feasibility judgements result in meaningful differences in research outcome.

The Automated Audio Captioning (AAC) task asks models to generate natural language descriptions of an audio input. Evaluating these machine-generated audio captions is a complex task that requires considering diverse factors, among them, auditory scene understanding, sound-object inference, temporal coherence, and the environmental context of the scene. While current methods focus on specific aspects, they often fail to provide an overall score that aligns well with human judgment. In this work, we propose CLAIR-A, a simple and flexible method that leverages the zero-shot capabilities of large language models (LLMs) to evaluate candidate audio captions by directly asking LLMs for a semantic distance score. In our evaluations, CLAIR-A better predicts human judgements of quality compared to traditional metrics, with a 5.8% relative accuracy improvement compared to the domain-specific FENSE metric and up to 11% over the best general-purpose measure on the Clotho-Eval dataset. Moreover, CLAIR-A offers more transparency by allowing the language model to explain the reasoning behind its scores, with these explanations rated up to 30% better by human evaluators than those provided by baseline methods. CLAIR-A is made publicly available at https://github.com/DavidMChan/clair-a.

LLM-as-a-Judge leverages the generative and reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) to evaluate LLM responses across diverse scenarios, providing accurate preference signals. This approach plays a vital role in aligning LLMs with human values, ensuring ethical and reliable AI outputs that align with societal norms. Recent studies have raised many methods to train LLM as generative judges, but most of them are data consuming or lack accuracy, and only focus on LLM's judge ability. In this work, we regard judge ability as a general ability of LLM and implement a two-stage training approach, comprising supervised fine-tuning (SFT) warm-up and direct preference optimization (DPO) enhancement, to achieve judge style adaptation and improve judgment accuracy. Additionally, we introduce an efficient data synthesis method to generate judgmental content. Experimental results demonstrate that our approach, utilizing only about 2% to 40% of the data required by other methods, achieves SOTA performance on RewardBench. Furthermore, our training method enhances the general capabilities of the model by constructing complicated judge task, and the judge signals provided by our model have significantly enhanced the downstream DPO training performance of our internal models in our test to optimize policy model with Judge Model. We also open-source our model weights and training data to facilitate further research.

While text-to-image (T2I) generative models have become ubiquitous, they do not necessarily generate images that align with a given prompt. While previous work has evaluated T2I alignment by proposing metrics, benchmarks, and templates for collecting human judgements, the quality of these components is not systematically measured. Human-rated prompt sets are generally small and the reliability of the ratings -- and thereby the prompt set used to compare models -- is not evaluated. We address this gap by performing an extensive study evaluating auto-eval metrics and human templates. We provide three main contributions: (1) We introduce a comprehensive skills-based benchmark that can discriminate models across different human templates. This skills-based benchmark categorises prompts into sub-skills, allowing a practitioner to pinpoint not only which skills are challenging, but at what level of complexity a skill becomes challenging. (2) We gather human ratings across four templates and four T2I models for a total of >100K annotations. This allows us to understand where differences arise due to inherent ambiguity in the prompt and where they arise due to differences in metric and model quality. (3) Finally, we introduce a new QA-based auto-eval metric that is better correlated with human ratings than existing metrics for our new dataset, across different human templates, and on TIFA160.

If machine learning models were to achieve superhuman abilities at various reasoning or decision-making tasks, how would we go about evaluating such models, given that humans would necessarily be poor proxies for ground truth? In this paper, we propose a framework for evaluating superhuman models via consistency checks. Our premise is that while the correctness of superhuman decisions may be impossible to evaluate, we can still surface mistakes if the model's decisions fail to satisfy certain logical, human-interpretable rules. We instantiate our framework on three tasks where correctness of decisions is hard to evaluate due to either superhuman model abilities, or to otherwise missing ground truth: evaluating chess positions, forecasting future events, and making legal judgments. We show that regardless of a model's (possibly superhuman) performance on these tasks, we can discover logical inconsistencies in decision making. For example: a chess engine assigning opposing valuations to semantically identical boards; GPT-4 forecasting that sports records will evolve non-monotonically over time; or an AI judge assigning bail to a defendant only after we add a felony to their criminal record.

An automated system that could assist a judge in predicting the outcome of a case would help expedite the judicial process. For such a system to be practically useful, predictions by the system should be explainable. To promote research in developing such a system, we introduce ILDC (Indian Legal Documents Corpus). ILDC is a large corpus of 35k Indian Supreme Court cases annotated with original court decisions. A portion of the corpus (a separate test set) is annotated with gold standard explanations by legal experts. Based on ILDC, we propose the task of Court Judgment Prediction and Explanation (CJPE). The task requires an automated system to predict an explainable outcome of a case. We experiment with a battery of baseline models for case predictions and propose a hierarchical occlusion based model for explainability. Our best prediction model has an accuracy of 78% versus 94% for human legal experts, pointing towards the complexity of the prediction task. The analysis of explanations by the proposed algorithm reveals a significant difference in the point of view of the algorithm and legal experts for explaining the judgments, pointing towards scope for future research.

Ensuring that large language models (LLMs) reflect diverse user values and preferences is crucial as their user bases expand globally. It is therefore encouraging to see the growing interest in LLM personalization within the research community. However, current works often rely on the LLM-as-a-Judge approach for evaluation without thoroughly examining its validity. In this paper, we investigate the reliability of LLM-as-a-Personalized-Judge, asking LLMs to judge user preferences based on personas. Our findings suggest that directly applying LLM-as-a-Personalized-Judge is less reliable than previously assumed, showing low and inconsistent agreement with human ground truth. The personas typically used are often overly simplistic, resulting in low predictive power. To address these issues, we introduce verbal uncertainty estimation into the LLM-as-a-Personalized-Judge pipeline, allowing the model to express low confidence on uncertain judgments. This adjustment leads to much higher agreement (above 80%) on high-certainty samples for binary tasks. Through human evaluation, we find that the LLM-as-a-Personalized-Judge achieves comparable performance to third-party humans evaluation and even surpasses human performance on high-certainty samples. Our work indicates that certainty-enhanced LLM-as-a-Personalized-Judge offers a promising direction for developing more reliable and scalable methods for evaluating LLM personalization.

Evaluating the general abilities of foundation models to tackle human-level tasks is a vital aspect of their development and application in the pursuit of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). Traditional benchmarks, which rely on artificial datasets, may not accurately represent human-level capabilities. In this paper, we introduce AGIEval, a novel benchmark specifically designed to assess foundation model in the context of human-centric standardized exams, such as college entrance exams, law school admission tests, math competitions, and lawyer qualification tests. We evaluate several state-of-the-art foundation models, including GPT-4, ChatGPT, and Text-Davinci-003, using this benchmark. Impressively, GPT-4 surpasses average human performance on SAT, LSAT, and math competitions, attaining a 95% accuracy rate on the SAT Math test and a 92.5% accuracy on the English test of the Chinese national college entrance exam. This demonstrates the extraordinary performance of contemporary foundation models. In contrast, we also find that GPT-4 is less proficient in tasks that require complex reasoning or specific domain knowledge. Our comprehensive analyses of model capabilities (understanding, knowledge, reasoning, and calculation) reveal these models' strengths and limitations, providing valuable insights into future directions for enhancing their general capabilities. By concentrating on tasks pertinent to human cognition and decision-making, our benchmark delivers a more meaningful and robust evaluation of foundation models' performance in real-world scenarios. The data, code, and all model outputs are released in https://github.com/microsoft/AGIEval.

The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) necessitates robust and challenging benchmarks. Leaderboards like Chatbot Arena rank LLMs based on how well their responses align with human preferences. However, many tasks such as those related to emotional intelligence, creative writing, or persuasiveness, are highly subjective and often lack majoritarian human agreement. Judges may have irreconcilable disagreements about what constitutes a better response. To address the challenge of ranking LLMs on highly subjective tasks, we propose a novel benchmarking framework, the Language Model Council (LMC). The LMC operates through a democratic process to: 1) formulate a test set through equal participation, 2) administer the test among council members, and 3) evaluate responses as a collective jury. We deploy a council of 20 newest LLMs on an open-ended emotional intelligence task: responding to interpersonal dilemmas. Our results show that the LMC produces rankings that are more separable, robust, and less biased than those from any individual LLM judge, and is more consistent with a human-established leaderboard compared to other benchmarks.

As AI systems are used to answer more difficult questions and potentially help create new knowledge, judging the truthfulness of their outputs becomes more difficult and more important. How can we supervise unreliable experts, which have access to the truth but may not accurately report it, to give answers that are systematically true and don't just superficially seem true, when the supervisor can't tell the difference between the two on their own? In this work, we show that debate between two unreliable experts can help a non-expert judge more reliably identify the truth. We collect a dataset of human-written debates on hard reading comprehension questions where the judge has not read the source passage, only ever seeing expert arguments and short quotes selectively revealed by 'expert' debaters who have access to the passage. In our debates, one expert argues for the correct answer, and the other for an incorrect answer. Comparing debate to a baseline we call consultancy, where a single expert argues for only one answer which is correct half of the time, we find that debate performs significantly better, with 84% judge accuracy compared to consultancy's 74%. Debates are also more efficient, being 68% of the length of consultancies. By comparing human to AI debaters, we find evidence that with more skilled (in this case, human) debaters, the performance of debate goes up but the performance of consultancy goes down. Our error analysis also supports this trend, with 46% of errors in human debate attributable to mistakes by the honest debater (which should go away with increased skill); whereas 52% of errors in human consultancy are due to debaters obfuscating the relevant evidence from the judge (which should become worse with increased skill). Overall, these results show that debate is a promising approach for supervising increasingly capable but potentially unreliable AI systems.

Efficient and accurate evaluation is crucial for the continuous improvement of large language models (LLMs). Among various assessment methods, subjective evaluation has garnered significant attention due to its superior alignment with real-world usage scenarios and human preferences. However, human-based evaluations are costly and lack reproducibility, making precise automated evaluators (judgers) vital in this process. In this report, we introduce CompassJudger-1, the first open-source all-in-one judge LLM. CompassJudger-1 is a general-purpose LLM that demonstrates remarkable versatility. It is capable of: 1. Performing unitary scoring and two-model comparisons as a reward model; 2. Conducting evaluations according to specified formats; 3. Generating critiques; 4. Executing diverse tasks like a general LLM. To assess the evaluation capabilities of different judge models under a unified setting, we have also established JudgerBench, a new benchmark that encompasses various subjective evaluation tasks and covers a wide range of topics. CompassJudger-1 offers a comprehensive solution for various evaluation tasks while maintaining the flexibility to adapt to diverse requirements. Both CompassJudger and JudgerBench are released and available to the research community athttps://github.com/open-compass/CompassJudger. We believe that by open-sourcing these tools, we can foster collaboration and accelerate progress in LLM evaluation methodologies.

Feedback data plays an important role in fine-tuning and evaluating state-of-the-art AI models. Often pairwise text preferences are used: given two texts, human (or AI) annotators select the "better" one. Such feedback data is widely used to align models to human preferences (e.g., reinforcement learning from human feedback), or to rank models according to human preferences (e.g., Chatbot Arena). Despite its wide-spread use, prior work has demonstrated that human-annotated pairwise text preference data often exhibits unintended biases. For example, human annotators have been shown to prefer assertive over truthful texts in certain contexts. Models trained or evaluated on this data may implicitly encode these biases in a manner hard to identify. In this paper, we formulate the interpretation of existing pairwise text preference data as a compression task: the Inverse Constitutional AI (ICAI) problem. In constitutional AI, a set of principles (or constitution) is used to provide feedback and fine-tune AI models. The ICAI problem inverts this process: given a dataset of feedback, we aim to extract a constitution that best enables a large language model (LLM) to reconstruct the original annotations. We propose a corresponding initial ICAI algorithm and validate its generated constitutions quantitatively based on reconstructed annotations. Generated constitutions have many potential use-cases -- they may help identify undesirable biases, scale feedback to unseen data or assist with adapting LLMs to individual user preferences. We demonstrate our approach on a variety of datasets: (a) synthetic feedback datasets with known underlying principles; (b) the AlpacaEval dataset of cross-annotated human feedback; and (c) the crowdsourced Chatbot Arena data set. We release the code for our algorithm and experiments at https://github.com/rdnfn/icai .

The growing capabilities of large language models (LLMs) have led to their use as substitutes for human feedback for training and assessing other LLMs. These methods often rely on `constitutions', written guidelines which a critic model uses to provide feedback and improve generations. We investigate how the choice of constitution affects feedback quality by using four different constitutions to improve patient-centered communication in medical interviews. In pairwise comparisons conducted by 215 human raters, we found that detailed constitutions led to better results regarding emotive qualities. However, none of the constitutions outperformed the baseline in learning more practically-oriented skills related to information gathering and provision. Our findings indicate that while detailed constitutions should be prioritised, there are possible limitations to the effectiveness of AI feedback as a reward signal in certain areas.

LLM-as-a-judge models have been used for evaluating both human and AI generated content, specifically by providing scores and rationales. Rationales, in addition to increasing transparency, help models learn to calibrate its judgments. Enhancing a model's rationale can therefore improve its calibration abilities and ultimately the ability to score content. We introduce Self-Rationalization, an iterative process of improving the rationales for the judge models, which consequently improves the score for fine-grained customizable scoring criteria (i.e., likert-scale scoring with arbitrary evaluation criteria). Self-rationalization works by having the model generate multiple judgments with rationales for the same input, curating a preference pair dataset from its own judgements, and iteratively fine-tuning the judge via DPO. Intuitively, this approach allows the judge model to self-improve by learning from its own rationales, leading to better alignment and evaluation accuracy. After just two iterations -- while only relying on examples in the training set -- human evaluation shows that our judge model learns to produce higher quality rationales, with a win rate of 62% on average compared to models just trained via SFT on rationale . This judge model also achieves high scoring accuracy on BigGen Bench and Reward Bench, outperforming even bigger sized models trained using SFT with rationale, self-consistency or best-of-N sampling by 3% to 9%.

As the most public component of the Supreme Court's decision-making process, oral argument receives an out-sized share of attention in the popular media. Despite its prominence, however, the basic function and operation of oral argument as an institution remains poorly understood, as political scientists and legal scholars continue to debate even the most fundamental questions about its role. Past study of oral argument has tended to focus on discrete, quantifiable attributes of oral argument, such as the number of questions asked to each advocate, the party of the Justices' appointing president, or the ideological implications of the case on appeal. Such studies allow broad generalizations about oral argument and judicial decision making: Justices tend to vote in accordance with their ideological preferences, and they tend to ask more questions when they are skeptical of a party's position. But they tell us little about the actual goings on at oral argument -- the running dialog between Justice and advocate that is the heart of the institution. This Article fills that void, using machine learning techniques to, for the first time, construct predictive models of judicial decision making based not on oral argument's superficial features or on factors external to oral argument, such as where the case falls on a liberal-conservative spectrum, but on the actual content of the oral argument itself -- the Justices' questions to each side. The resultant models offer an important new window into aspects of oral argument that have long resisted empirical study, including the Justices' individual questioning styles, how each expresses skepticism, and which of the Justices' questions are most central to oral argument dialog.

The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) has driven their expanding application across various fields. One of the most promising applications is their role as evaluators based on natural language responses, referred to as ''LLMs-as-judges''. This framework has attracted growing attention from both academia and industry due to their excellent effectiveness, ability to generalize across tasks, and interpretability in the form of natural language. This paper presents a comprehensive survey of the LLMs-as-judges paradigm from five key perspectives: Functionality, Methodology, Applications, Meta-evaluation, and Limitations. We begin by providing a systematic definition of LLMs-as-Judges and introduce their functionality (Why use LLM judges?). Then we address methodology to construct an evaluation system with LLMs (How to use LLM judges?). Additionally, we investigate the potential domains for their application (Where to use LLM judges?) and discuss methods for evaluating them in various contexts (How to evaluate LLM judges?). Finally, we provide a detailed analysis of the limitations of LLM judges and discuss potential future directions. Through a structured and comprehensive analysis, we aim aims to provide insights on the development and application of LLMs-as-judges in both research and practice. We will continue to maintain the relevant resource list at https://github.com/CSHaitao/Awesome-LLMs-as-Judges.

As LLMs evolve on a daily basis, there is an urgent need for a trustworthy evaluation method that can provide robust evaluation results in a timely fashion. Currently, as static benchmarks are prone to contamination concerns, users tend to trust human voting platforms, such as Chatbot Arena. However, human annotations require extensive manual efforts. To provide an automatic, robust, and trustworthy evaluation framework, we innovatively propose the Auto-Arena of LLMs, which automates the entire evaluation process with LLM agents. Firstly, an examiner LLM devises queries. Then, a pair of candidate LLMs engage in a multi-round peer-battle around the query, during which the LLM's true performance gaps become visible. Finally, a committee of LLM judges collectively discuss and determine the winner, which alleviates bias and promotes fairness. In our extensive experiment on the 17 newest LLMs, Auto-Arena shows the highest correlation with human preferences, providing a promising alternative to human evaluation platforms.

This work demonstrates that Legal Judgement Prediction systems without expert-informed adjustments can be vulnerable to shallow, distracting surface signals that arise from corpus construction, case distribution, and confounding factors. To mitigate this, we use domain expertise to strategically identify statistically predictive but legally irrelevant information. We adopt adversarial training to prevent the system from relying on it. We evaluate our deconfounded models by employing interpretability techniques and comparing to expert annotations. Quantitative experiments and qualitative analysis show that our deconfounded model consistently aligns better with expert rationales than baselines trained for prediction only. We further contribute a set of reference expert annotations to the validation and testing partitions of an existing benchmark dataset of European Court of Human Rights cases.

Automatic evaluation remains an open research question in Natural Language Generation. In the context of Sentence Simplification, this is particularly challenging: the task requires by nature to replace complex words with simpler ones that shares the same meaning. This limits the effectiveness of n-gram based metrics like BLEU. Going hand in hand with the recent advances in NLG, new metrics have been proposed, such as BERTScore for Machine Translation. In summarization, the QuestEval metric proposes to automatically compare two texts by questioning them. In this paper, we first propose a simple modification of QuestEval allowing it to tackle Sentence Simplification. We then extensively evaluate the correlations w.r.t. human judgement for several metrics including the recent BERTScore and QuestEval, and show that the latter obtain state-of-the-art correlations, outperforming standard metrics like BLEU and SARI. More importantly, we also show that a large part of the correlations are actually spurious for all the metrics. To investigate this phenomenon further, we release a new corpus of evaluated simplifications, this time not generated by systems but instead, written by humans. This allows us to remove the spurious correlations and draw very different conclusions from the original ones, resulting in a better understanding of these metrics. In particular, we raise concerns about very low correlations for most of traditional metrics. Our results show that the only significant measure of the Meaning Preservation is our adaptation of QuestEval.

This paper introduces CaseSumm, a novel dataset for long-context summarization in the legal domain that addresses the need for longer and more complex datasets for summarization evaluation. We collect 25.6K U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) opinions and their official summaries, known as "syllabuses." Our dataset is the largest open legal case summarization dataset, and is the first to include summaries of SCOTUS decisions dating back to 1815. We also present a comprehensive evaluation of LLM-generated summaries using both automatic metrics and expert human evaluation, revealing discrepancies between these assessment methods. Our evaluation shows Mistral 7b, a smaller open-source model, outperforms larger models on most automatic metrics and successfully generates syllabus-like summaries. In contrast, human expert annotators indicate that Mistral summaries contain hallucinations. The annotators consistently rank GPT-4 summaries as clearer and exhibiting greater sensitivity and specificity. Further, we find that LLM-based evaluations are not more correlated with human evaluations than traditional automatic metrics. Furthermore, our analysis identifies specific hallucinations in generated summaries, including precedent citation errors and misrepresentations of case facts. These findings demonstrate the limitations of current automatic evaluation methods for legal summarization and highlight the critical role of human evaluation in assessing summary quality, particularly in complex, high-stakes domains. CaseSumm is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/ChicagoHAI/CaseSumm

Posing reading comprehension as a generation problem provides a great deal of flexibility, allowing for open-ended questions with few restrictions on possible answers. However, progress is impeded by existing generation metrics, which rely on token overlap and are agnostic to the nuances of reading comprehension. To address this, we introduce a benchmark for training and evaluating generative reading comprehension metrics: MOdeling Correctness with Human Annotations. MOCHA contains 40K human judgement scores on model outputs from 6 diverse question answering datasets and an additional set of minimal pairs for evaluation. Using MOCHA, we train a Learned Evaluation metric for Reading Comprehension, LERC, to mimic human judgement scores. LERC outperforms baseline metrics by 10 to 36 absolute Pearson points on held-out annotations. When we evaluate robustness on minimal pairs, LERC achieves 80% accuracy, outperforming baselines by 14 to 26 absolute percentage points while leaving significant room for improvement. MOCHA presents a challenging problem for developing accurate and robust generative reading comprehension metrics.

In a legal system, judgment consistency is regarded as one of the most important manifestations of fairness. However, due to the complexity of factual elements that impact sentencing in real-world scenarios, few works have been done on quantitatively measuring judgment consistency towards real-world data. In this paper, we propose an evaluation metric for judgment inconsistency, Legal Inconsistency Coefficient (LInCo), which aims to evaluate inconsistency between data groups divided by specific features (e.g., gender, region, race). We propose to simulate judges from different groups with legal judgment prediction (LJP) models and measure the judicial inconsistency with the disagreement of the judgment results given by LJP models trained on different groups. Experimental results on the synthetic data verify the effectiveness of LInCo. We further employ LInCo to explore the inconsistency in real cases and come to the following observations: (1) Both regional and gender inconsistency exist in the legal system, but gender inconsistency is much less than regional inconsistency; (2) The level of regional inconsistency varies little across different time periods; (3) In general, judicial inconsistency is negatively correlated with the severity of the criminal charges. Besides, we use LInCo to evaluate the performance of several de-bias methods, such as adversarial learning, and find that these mechanisms can effectively help LJP models to avoid suffering from data bias.

Language models (LMs) as conversational assistants recently became popular tools that help people accomplish a variety of tasks. These typically result from adapting LMs pretrained on general domain text sequences through further instruction-tuning and possibly preference optimisation methods. The evaluation of such LMs would ideally be performed using human judgement, however, this is not scalable. On the other hand, automatic evaluation featuring auxiliary LMs as judges and/or knowledge-based tasks is scalable but struggles with assessing conversational ability and adherence to instructions. To help accelerate the development of LMs as conversational assistants, we propose a novel automatic evaluation task: HumanRankEval (HRE). It consists of a large-scale, diverse and high-quality set of questions, each with several answers authored and scored by humans. To perform evaluation, HRE ranks these answers based on their log-likelihood under the LM's distribution, and subsequently calculates their correlation with the corresponding human rankings. We support HRE's efficacy by investigating how efficiently it separates pretrained and instruction-tuned LMs of various sizes. We show that HRE correlates well with human judgements and is particularly responsive to model changes following instruction-tuning.

We propose a simple and effective method for machine translation evaluation which does not require reference translations. Our approach is based on (1) grounding the entity mentions found in each source sentence and candidate translation against a large-scale multilingual knowledge base, and (2) measuring the recall of the grounded entities found in the candidate vs. those found in the source. Our approach achieves the highest correlation with human judgements on 9 out of the 18 language pairs from the WMT19 benchmark for evaluation without references, which is the largest number of wins for a single evaluation method on this task. On 4 language pairs, we also achieve higher correlation with human judgements than BLEU. To foster further research, we release a dataset containing 1.8 million grounded entity mentions across 18 language pairs from the WMT19 metrics track data.

Pre-trained language models (PLMs) have achieved great success in NLP and have recently been used for tasks in computational semantics. However, these tasks do not fully benefit from PLMs since meaning representations are not explicitly included in the pre-training stage. We introduce multilingual pre-trained language-meaning models based on Discourse Representation Structures (DRSs), including meaning representations besides natural language texts in the same model, and design a new strategy to reduce the gap between the pre-training and fine-tuning objectives. Since DRSs are language neutral, cross-lingual transfer learning is adopted to further improve the performance of non-English tasks. Automatic evaluation results show that our approach achieves the best performance on both the multilingual DRS parsing and DRS-to-text generation tasks. Correlation analysis between automatic metrics and human judgements on the generation task further validates the effectiveness of our model. Human inspection reveals that out-of-vocabulary tokens are the main cause of erroneous results.

It is important to define meaningful and interpretable automatic evaluation metrics for open-domain dialog research. Standard language generation metrics have been shown to be ineffective for dialog. This paper introduces the FED metric (fine-grained evaluation of dialog), an automatic evaluation metric which uses DialoGPT, without any fine-tuning or supervision. It also introduces the FED dataset which is constructed by annotating a set of human-system and human-human conversations with eighteen fine-grained dialog qualities. The FED metric (1) does not rely on a ground-truth response, (2) does not require training data and (3) measures fine-grained dialog qualities at both the turn and whole dialog levels. FED attains moderate to strong correlation with human judgement at both levels.

We introduce the Scratchpad Mechanism, a novel addition to the sequence-to-sequence (seq2seq) neural network architecture and demonstrate its effectiveness in improving the overall fluency of seq2seq models for natural language generation tasks. By enabling the decoder at each time step to write to all of the encoder output layers, Scratchpad can employ the encoder as a "scratchpad" memory to keep track of what has been generated so far and thereby guide future generation. We evaluate Scratchpad in the context of three well-studied natural language generation tasks --- Machine Translation, Question Generation, and Text Summarization --- and obtain state-of-the-art or comparable performance on standard datasets for each task. Qualitative assessments in the form of human judgements (question generation), attention visualization (MT), and sample output (summarization) provide further evidence of the ability of Scratchpad to generate fluent and expressive output.

Binding precedents (S\'umulas Vinculantes) constitute a juridical instrument unique to the Brazilian legal system and whose objectives include the protection of the Federal Supreme Court against repetitive demands. Studies of the effectiveness of these instruments in decreasing the Court's exposure to similar cases, however, indicate that they tend to fail in such a direction, with some of the binding precedents seemingly creating new demands. We empirically assess the legal impact of five binding precedents, 11, 14, 17, 26 and 37, at the highest court level through their effects on the legal subjects they address. This analysis is only possible through the comparison of the Court's ruling about the precedents' themes before they are created, which means that these decisions should be detected through techniques of Similar Case Retrieval. The contributions of this article are therefore twofold: on the mathematical side, we compare the uses of different methods of Natural Language Processing -- TF-IDF, LSTM, BERT, and regex -- for Similar Case Retrieval, whereas on the legal side, we contrast the inefficiency of these binding precedents with a set of hypotheses that may justify their repeated usage. We observe that the deep learning models performed significantly worse in the specific Similar Case Retrieval task and that the reasons for binding precedents to fail in responding to repetitive demand are heterogeneous and case-dependent, making it impossible to single out a specific cause.

We evaluated 3 systems (ELIZA, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4) in a randomized, controlled, and preregistered Turing test. Human participants had a 5 minute conversation with either a human or an AI, and judged whether or not they thought their interlocutor was human. GPT-4 was judged to be a human 54% of the time, outperforming ELIZA (22%) but lagging behind actual humans (67%). The results provide the first robust empirical demonstration that any artificial system passes an interactive 2-player Turing test. The results have implications for debates around machine intelligence and, more urgently, suggest that deception by current AI systems may go undetected. Analysis of participants' strategies and reasoning suggests that stylistic and socio-emotional factors play a larger role in passing the Turing test than traditional notions of intelligence.

As AI systems become more capable, we would like to enlist their help to supervise other AIs. We experiment with methods for training a harmless AI assistant through self-improvement, without any human labels identifying harmful outputs. The only human oversight is provided through a list of rules or principles, and so we refer to the method as 'Constitutional AI'. The process involves both a supervised learning and a reinforcement learning phase. In the supervised phase we sample from an initial model, then generate self-critiques and revisions, and then finetune the original model on revised responses. In the RL phase, we sample from the finetuned model, use a model to evaluate which of the two samples is better, and then train a preference model from this dataset of AI preferences. We then train with RL using the preference model as the reward signal, i.e. we use 'RL from AI Feedback' (RLAIF). As a result we are able to train a harmless but non-evasive AI assistant that engages with harmful queries by explaining its objections to them. Both the SL and RL methods can leverage chain-of-thought style reasoning to improve the human-judged performance and transparency of AI decision making. These methods make it possible to control AI behavior more precisely and with far fewer human labels.

This research tests the role of Large Language Models (LLMs) as formal second opinion tools in professional decision-making, particularly focusing on complex medical cases where even experienced physicians seek peer consultation. The work analyzed 183 challenging medical cases from Medscape over a 20-month period, testing multiple LLMs' performance against crowd-sourced physician responses. A key finding was the high overall score possible in the latest foundational models (>80% accuracy compared to consensus opinion), which exceeds most human metrics reported on the same clinical cases (450 pages of patient profiles, test results). The study rates the LLMs' performance disparity between straightforward cases (>81% accuracy) and complex scenarios (43% accuracy), particularly in these cases generating substantial debate among human physicians. The research demonstrates that LLMs may be valuable as generators of comprehensive differential diagnoses rather than as primary diagnostic tools, potentially helping to counter cognitive biases in clinical decision-making, reduce cognitive loads, and thus remove some sources of medical error. The inclusion of a second comparative legal dataset (Supreme Court cases, N=21) provides added empirical context to the AI use to foster second opinions, though these legal challenges proved considerably easier for LLMs to analyze. In addition to the original contributions of empirical evidence for LLM accuracy, the research aggregated a novel benchmark for others to score highly contested question and answer reliability between both LLMs and disagreeing human practitioners. These results suggest that the optimal deployment of LLMs in professional settings may differ substantially from current approaches that emphasize automation of routine tasks.

Despite the success of integrating large language models into the development of conversational systems, many studies have shown the effectiveness of retrieving and augmenting external knowledge for informative responses. Hence, many existing studies commonly assume the always need for Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) in a conversational system without explicit control. This raises a research question about such a necessity. In this study, we propose to investigate the need for each turn of system response to be augmented with external knowledge. In particular, by leveraging human judgements on the binary choice of adaptive augmentation, we develop RAGate, a gating model, which models conversation context and relevant inputs to predict if a conversational system requires RAG for improved responses. We conduct extensive experiments on devising and applying RAGate to conversational models and well-rounded analyses of different conversational scenarios. Our experimental results and analysis indicate the effective application of RAGate in RAG-based conversational systems in identifying system responses for appropriate RAG with high-quality responses and a high generation confidence. This study also identifies the correlation between the generation's confidence level and the relevance of the augmented knowledge.

In recent years, researchers have created and introduced a significant number of various code generation models. As human evaluation of every new model version is unfeasible, the community adopted automatic evaluation metrics such as BLEU to approximate the results of human judgement. These metrics originate from the machine translation domain and it is unclear whether they are applicable for the code generation tasks and how well they agree with the human evaluation on this task. There are also other metrics, CodeBLEU and RUBY, developed to estimate the similarity of code, that take into account the properties of source code. However, for these metrics there are hardly any studies on their agreement with the human evaluation. Despite all that, minimal differences in the metric scores have been used in recent papers to claim superiority of some code generation models over the others. In this paper, we present a study on the applicability of six metrics -- BLEU, ROUGE-L, METEOR, ChrF, CodeBLEU, and RUBY -- for evaluation of code generation models. We conduct a study on two different code generation datasets and use human annotators to assess the quality of all models run on these datasets. The results indicate that for the CoNaLa dataset of Python one-liners, none of the metrics can correctly emulate human judgement on which model is better with >95% certainty if the difference in model scores is less than 5 points. For the HearthStone dataset, which consists of classes of a particular structure, a difference in model scores of at least 2 points is enough to claim the superiority of one model over the other. Our findings suggest that the ChrF metric is a better fit for the evaluation of code generation models than the commonly used BLEU and CodeBLEU. Yet, finding a metric for code generation that closely agrees with humans requires additional work.

Interactions with large language models (LLMs) often yield long and detailed responses, leveraging both parametric knowledge and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). While these responses can provide rich insights, they often include redundant or less engaging content not aligned with user interests. This issue becomes apparent when users specify particular subtopics to include or exclude -- termed coverage-conditioned (C^2) queries -- as LLMs often struggle to provide tailored responses. To address this challenge, we investigate the role of query outlines, sequences of subqueries designed to guide LLMs in generating responses that meet specific user requirements. To systematically create and evaluate these outlines, we introduce QTree, a dataset of 10K hierarchical sets of information-seeking subqueries that define structured boundaries for outline creation and evaluation in C^2 scenarios. Additionally, we develop QPlanner, a 7B language model trained to generate customized outlines within boundaries of QTree. We evaluate the effectiveness of the generated outlines through automatic and human judgements, focusing on their impact within retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems. Experimental results demonstrate that QPlanner, especially when trained with alignment techniques like DPO, generates higher-quality outlines that better fulfill diverse user needs.

Recent machine translation (MT) metrics calibrate their effectiveness by correlating with human judgement but without any insights about their behaviour across different error types. Challenge sets are used to probe specific dimensions of metric behaviour but there are very few such datasets and they either focus on a limited number of phenomena or a limited number of language pairs. We introduce ACES, a contrastive challenge set spanning 146 language pairs, aimed at discovering whether metrics can identify 68 translation accuracy errors. These phenomena range from simple alterations at the word/character level to more complex errors based on discourse and real-world knowledge. We conduct a large-scale study by benchmarking ACES on 50 metrics submitted to the WMT 2022 and 2023 metrics shared tasks. We benchmark metric performance, assess their incremental performance over successive campaigns, and measure their sensitivity to a range of linguistic phenomena. We also investigate claims that Large Language Models (LLMs) are effective as MT evaluators by evaluating on ACES. Our results demonstrate that different metric families struggle with different phenomena and that LLM-based methods fail to demonstrate reliable performance. Our analyses indicate that most metrics ignore the source sentence, tend to prefer surface-level overlap and end up incorporating properties of base models which are not always beneficial. We expand ACES to include error span annotations, denoted as SPAN-ACES and we use this dataset to evaluate span-based error metrics showing these metrics also need considerable improvement. Finally, we provide a set of recommendations for building better MT metrics, including focusing on error labels instead of scores, ensembling, designing strategies to explicitly focus on the source sentence, focusing on semantic content and choosing the right base model for representations.

Automatically evaluating the quality of language generation is critical. Although recent learned metrics show high correlation with human judgement, these metrics can not explain their verdict or associate the scores with defects in generated text. To address this limitation, we present InstructScore, an explainable evaluation metric for text generation. By harnessing both explicit human instruction and the implicit knowledge of GPT-4, we fine-tune a text evaluation metric based on LLaMA, producing both a score for generated text and a human readable diagnostic report. We evaluate InstructScore on a variety of generation tasks, including translation, captioning, data-to-text and commonsense generation. Experiments show that our 7B model surpasses all other unsupervised metrics, including those based on 175B GPT-3 and GPT-4. Surprisingly, our InstructScore, even without direct supervision from human-rated data, achieves performance levels on par with state-of-the-art metrics like COMET22, which were fine-tuned on human ratings.

As machine translation (MT) metrics improve their correlation with human judgement every year, it is crucial to understand the limitations of such metrics at the segment level. Specifically, it is important to investigate metric behaviour when facing accuracy errors in MT because these can have dangerous consequences in certain contexts (e.g., legal, medical). We curate ACES, a translation accuracy challenge set, consisting of 68 phenomena ranging from simple perturbations at the word/character level to more complex errors based on discourse and real-world knowledge. We use ACES to evaluate a wide range of MT metrics including the submissions to the WMT 2022 metrics shared task and perform several analyses leading to general recommendations for metric developers. We recommend: a) combining metrics with different strengths, b) developing metrics that give more weight to the source and less to surface-level overlap with the reference and c) explicitly modelling additional language-specific information beyond what is available via multilingual embeddings.

Trainable evaluation metrics for machine translation (MT) exhibit strong correlation with human judgements, but they are often hard to interpret and might produce unreliable scores under noisy or out-of-domain data. Recent work has attempted to mitigate this with simple uncertainty quantification techniques (Monte Carlo dropout and deep ensembles), however these techniques (as we show) are limited in several ways -- for example, they are unable to distinguish between different kinds of uncertainty, and they are time and memory consuming. In this paper, we propose more powerful and efficient uncertainty predictors for MT evaluation, and we assess their ability to target different sources of aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty. To this end, we develop and compare training objectives for the COMET metric to enhance it with an uncertainty prediction output, including heteroscedastic regression, divergence minimization, and direct uncertainty prediction. Our experiments show improved results on uncertainty prediction for the WMT metrics task datasets, with a substantial reduction in computational costs. Moreover, they demonstrate the ability of these predictors to address specific uncertainty causes in MT evaluation, such as low quality references and out-of-domain data.

Human feedback can prevent overtly harmful utterances in conversational models, but may not automatically mitigate subtle problematic behaviors such as a stated desire for self-preservation or power. Constitutional AI offers an alternative, replacing human feedback with feedback from AI models conditioned only on a list of written principles. We find this approach effectively prevents the expression of such behaviors. The success of simple principles motivates us to ask: can models learn general ethical behaviors from only a single written principle? To test this, we run experiments using a principle roughly stated as "do what's best for humanity". We find that the largest dialogue models can generalize from this short constitution, resulting in harmless assistants with no stated interest in specific motivations like power. A general principle may thus partially avoid the need for a long list of constitutions targeting potentially harmful behaviors. However, more detailed constitutions still improve fine-grained control over specific types of harms. This suggests both general and specific principles have value for steering AI safely.

Natural language generation (NLG) spans a broad range of tasks, each of which serves for specific objectives and desires different properties of generated text. The complexity makes automatic evaluation of NLG particularly challenging. Previous work has typically focused on a single task and developed individual evaluation metrics based on specific intuitions. In this paper, we propose a unifying perspective that facilitates the design of metrics for a wide range of language generation tasks and quality aspects. Based on the nature of information change from input to output, we classify NLG tasks into compression (e.g., summarization), transduction (e.g., text rewriting), and creation (e.g., dialog). The information alignment, or overlap, between input, context, and output text plays a common central role in characterizing the generation. Using the uniform concept of information alignment, we develop a family of interpretable metrics for various NLG tasks and aspects, often without need of gold reference data. To operationalize the metrics, we train self-supervised models to approximate information alignment as a prediction task. Experiments show the uniformly designed metrics achieve stronger or comparable correlations with human judgement compared to state-of-the-art metrics in each of diverse tasks, including text summarization, style transfer, and knowledge-grounded dialog. With information alignment as the intermediate representation, we deliver a composable library for easy NLG evaluation and future metric design.

Automatic dialogue coherence evaluation has attracted increasing attention and is crucial for developing promising dialogue systems. However, existing metrics have two major limitations: (a) they are mostly trained in a simplified two-level setting (coherent vs. incoherent), while humans give Likert-type multi-level coherence scores, dubbed as "quantifiable"; (b) their predicted coherence scores cannot align with the actual human rating standards due to the absence of human guidance during training. To address these limitations, we propose Quantifiable Dialogue Coherence Evaluation (QuantiDCE), a novel framework aiming to train a quantifiable dialogue coherence metric that can reflect the actual human rating standards. Specifically, QuantiDCE includes two training stages, Multi-Level Ranking (MLR) pre-training and Knowledge Distillation (KD) fine-tuning. During MLR pre-training, a new MLR loss is proposed for enabling the model to learn the coarse judgement of coherence degrees. Then, during KD fine-tuning, the pretrained model is further finetuned to learn the actual human rating standards with only very few human-annotated data. To advocate the generalizability even with limited fine-tuning data, a novel KD regularization is introduced to retain the knowledge learned at the pre-training stage. Experimental results show that the model trained by QuantiDCE presents stronger correlations with human judgements than the other state-of-the-art metrics.

While dialogue remains an important end-goal of natural language research, the difficulty of evaluation is an oft-quoted reason why it remains troublesome to make real progress towards its solution. Evaluation difficulties are actually two-fold: not only do automatic metrics not correlate well with human judgments, but also human judgments themselves are in fact difficult to measure. The two most used human judgment tests, single-turn pairwise evaluation and multi-turn Likert scores, both have serious flaws as we discuss in this work. We instead provide a novel procedure involving comparing two full dialogues, where a human judge is asked to pay attention to only one speaker within each, and make a pairwise judgment. The questions themselves are optimized to maximize the robustness of judgments across different annotators, resulting in better tests. We also show how these tests work in self-play model chat setups, resulting in faster, cheaper tests. We hope these tests become the de facto standard, and will release open-source code to that end.

Equipping agents with the capacity to justify made decisions using supporting evidence represents a cornerstone of accountable decision-making. Furthermore, ensuring that justifications are in line with human expectations and societal norms is vital, especially in high-stakes situations such as healthcare. In this work, we propose the use of a debate-based reward model for reinforcement learning agents, where the outcome of a zero-sum debate game quantifies the justifiability of a decision in a particular state. This reward model is then used to train a justifiable policy, whose decisions can be more easily corroborated with supporting evidence. In the debate game, two argumentative agents take turns providing supporting evidence for two competing decisions. Given the proposed evidence, a proxy of a human judge evaluates which decision is better justified. We demonstrate the potential of our approach in learning policies for prescribing and justifying treatment decisions of septic patients. We show that augmenting the reward with the feedback signal generated by the debate-based reward model yields policies highly favored by the judge when compared to the policy obtained solely from the environment rewards, while hardly sacrificing any performance. Moreover, in terms of the overall performance and justifiability of trained policies, the debate-based feedback is comparable to the feedback obtained from an ideal judge proxy that evaluates decisions using the full information encoded in the state. This suggests that the debate game outputs key information contained in states that is most relevant for evaluating decisions, which in turn substantiates the practicality of combining our approach with human-in-the-loop evaluations. Lastly, we showcase that agents trained via multi-agent debate learn to propose evidence that is resilient to refutations and closely aligns with human preferences.

Visual clustering is a common perceptual task in scatterplots that supports diverse analytics tasks (e.g., cluster identification). However, even with the same scatterplot, the ways of perceiving clusters (i.e., conducting visual clustering) can differ due to the differences among individuals and ambiguous cluster boundaries. Although such perceptual variability casts doubt on the reliability of data analysis based on visual clustering, we lack a systematic way to efficiently assess this variability. In this research, we study perceptual variability in conducting visual clustering, which we call Cluster Ambiguity. To this end, we introduce CLAMS, a data-driven visual quality measure for automatically predicting cluster ambiguity in monochrome scatterplots. We first conduct a qualitative study to identify key factors that affect the visual separation of clusters (e.g., proximity or size difference between clusters). Based on study findings, we deploy a regression module that estimates the human-judged separability of two clusters. Then, CLAMS predicts cluster ambiguity by analyzing the aggregated results of all pairwise separability between clusters that are generated by the module. CLAMS outperforms widely-used clustering techniques in predicting ground truth cluster ambiguity. Meanwhile, CLAMS exhibits performance on par with human annotators. We conclude our work by presenting two applications for optimizing and benchmarking data mining techniques using CLAMS. The interactive demo of CLAMS is available at clusterambiguity.dev.

Large text corpora are increasingly important for a wide variety of Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks, and automatic language identification (LangID) is a core technology needed to collect such datasets in a multilingual context. LangID is largely treated as solved in the literature, with models reported that achieve over 90% average F1 on as many as 1,366 languages. We train LangID models on up to 1,629 languages with comparable quality on held-out test sets, but find that human-judged LangID accuracy for web-crawl text corpora created using these models is only around 5% for many lower-resource languages, suggesting a need for more robust evaluation. Further analysis revealed a variety of error modes, arising from domain mismatch, class imbalance, language similarity, and insufficiently expressive models. We propose two classes of techniques to mitigate these errors: wordlist-based tunable-precision filters (for which we release curated lists in about 500 languages) and transformer-based semi-supervised LangID models, which increase median dataset precision from 5.5% to 71.2%. These techniques enable us to create an initial data set covering 100K or more relatively clean sentences in each of 500+ languages, paving the way towards a 1,000-language web text corpus.

The evaluation of image captions, looking at both linguistic fluency and semantic correspondence to visual contents, has witnessed a significant effort. Still, despite advancements such as the CLIPScore metric, multilingual captioning evaluation has remained relatively unexplored. This work presents several strategies, and extensive experiments, related to evaluating CLIPScore variants in multilingual settings. To address the lack of multilingual test data, we consider two different strategies: (1) using quality aware machine-translated datasets with human judgements, and (2) re-purposing multilingual datasets that target semantic inference and reasoning. Our results highlight the potential of finetuned multilingual models to generalize across languages and to handle complex linguistic challenges. Tests with machine-translated data show that multilingual CLIPScore models can maintain a high correlation with human judgements across different languages, and additional tests with natively multilingual and multicultural data further attest to the high-quality assessments.

Text-to-Image (TTI) generative models have shown great progress in the past few years in terms of their ability to generate complex and high-quality imagery. At the same time, these models have been shown to suffer from harmful biases, including exaggerated societal biases (e.g., gender, ethnicity), as well as incidental correlations that limit such a model's ability to generate more diverse imagery. In this paper, we propose a general approach to study and quantify a broad spectrum of biases, for any TTI model and for any prompt, using counterfactual reasoning. Unlike other works that evaluate generated images on a predefined set of bias axes, our approach automatically identifies potential biases that might be relevant to the given prompt, and measures those biases. In addition, we complement quantitative scores with post-hoc explanations in terms of semantic concepts in the images generated. We show that our method is uniquely capable of explaining complex multi-dimensional biases through semantic concepts, as well as the intersectionality between different biases for any given prompt. We perform extensive user studies to illustrate that the results of our method and analysis are consistent with human judgements.

Dialogue assessment plays a critical role in the development of open-domain dialogue systems. Existing work are uncapable of providing an end-to-end and human-epistemic assessment dataset, while they only provide sub-metrics like coherence or the dialogues are conversed between annotators far from real user settings. In this paper, we release a large-scale dialogue quality assessment dataset (DiQAD), for automatically assessing open-domain dialogue quality. Specifically, we (1) establish the assessment criteria based on the dimensions conforming to human judgements on dialogue qualities, and (2) annotate large-scale dialogues that conversed between real users based on these annotation criteria, which contains around 100,000 dialogues. We conduct several experiments and report the performances of the baselines as the benchmark on DiQAD. The dataset is openly accessible at https://github.com/yukunZhao/Dataset_Dialogue_quality_evaluation.

Is it possible to build a general and automatic natural language generation (NLG) evaluation metric? Existing learned metrics either perform unsatisfactorily or are restricted to tasks where large human rating data is already available. We introduce SESCORE, a model-based metric that is highly correlated with human judgements without requiring human annotation, by utilizing a novel, iterative error synthesis and severity scoring pipeline. This pipeline applies a series of plausible errors to raw text and assigns severity labels by simulating human judgements with entailment. We evaluate SESCORE against existing metrics by comparing how their scores correlate with human ratings. SESCORE outperforms all prior unsupervised metrics on multiple diverse NLG tasks including machine translation, image captioning, and WebNLG text generation. For WMT 20/21 En-De and Zh-En, SESCORE improve the average Kendall correlation with human judgement from 0.154 to 0.195. SESCORE even achieves comparable performance to the best supervised metric COMET, despite receiving no human-annotated training data.

Target-guided response generation enables dialogue systems to smoothly transition a conversation from a dialogue context toward a target sentence. Such control is useful for designing dialogue systems that direct a conversation toward specific goals, such as creating non-obtrusive recommendations or introducing new topics in the conversation. In this paper, we introduce a new technique for target-guided response generation, which first finds a bridging path of commonsense knowledge concepts between the source and the target, and then uses the identified bridging path to generate transition responses. Additionally, we propose techniques to re-purpose existing dialogue datasets for target-guided generation. Experiments reveal that the proposed techniques outperform various baselines on this task. Finally, we observe that the existing automated metrics for this task correlate poorly with human judgement ratings. We propose a novel evaluation metric that we demonstrate is more reliable for target-guided response evaluation. Our work generally enables dialogue system designers to exercise more control over the conversations that their systems produce.

Fr\'echet Inception Distance (FID) is the primary metric for ranking models in data-driven generative modeling. While remarkably successful, the metric is known to sometimes disagree with human judgement. We investigate a root cause of these discrepancies, and visualize what FID "looks at" in generated images. We show that the feature space that FID is (typically) computed in is so close to the ImageNet classifications that aligning the histograms of Top-N classifications between sets of generated and real images can reduce FID substantially -- without actually improving the quality of results. Thus, we conclude that FID is prone to intentional or accidental distortions. As a practical example of an accidental distortion, we discuss a case where an ImageNet pre-trained FastGAN achieves a FID comparable to StyleGAN2, while being worse in terms of human evaluation.

Several neural-based metrics have been recently proposed to evaluate machine translation quality. However, all of them resort to point estimates, which provide limited information at segment level. This is made worse as they are trained on noisy, biased and scarce human judgements, often resulting in unreliable quality predictions. In this paper, we introduce uncertainty-aware MT evaluation and analyze the trustworthiness of the predicted quality. We combine the COMET framework with two uncertainty estimation methods, Monte Carlo dropout and deep ensembles, to obtain quality scores along with confidence intervals. We compare the performance of our uncertainty-aware MT evaluation methods across multiple language pairs from the QT21 dataset and the WMT20 metrics task, augmented with MQM annotations. We experiment with varying numbers of references and further discuss the usefulness of uncertainty-aware quality estimation (without references) to flag possibly critical translation mistakes.

We present COMET, a neural framework for training multilingual machine translation evaluation models which obtains new state-of-the-art levels of correlation with human judgements. Our framework leverages recent breakthroughs in cross-lingual pretrained language modeling resulting in highly multilingual and adaptable MT evaluation models that exploit information from both the source input and a target-language reference translation in order to more accurately predict MT quality. To showcase our framework, we train three models with different types of human judgements: Direct Assessments, Human-mediated Translation Edit Rate and Multidimensional Quality Metrics. Our models achieve new state-of-the-art performance on the WMT 2019 Metrics shared task and demonstrate robustness to high-performing systems.

We present a causal speech enhancement model working on the raw waveform that runs in real-time on a laptop CPU. The proposed model is based on an encoder-decoder architecture with skip-connections. It is optimized on both time and frequency domains, using multiple loss functions. Empirical evidence shows that it is capable of removing various kinds of background noise including stationary and non-stationary noises, as well as room reverb. Additionally, we suggest a set of data augmentation techniques applied directly on the raw waveform which further improve model performance and its generalization abilities. We perform evaluations on several standard benchmarks, both using objective metrics and human judgements. The proposed model matches state-of-the-art performance of both causal and non causal methods while working directly on the raw waveform.

Text-to-image generative models are becoming increasingly popular and accessible to the general public. As these models see large-scale deployments, it is necessary to deeply investigate their safety and fairness to not disseminate and perpetuate any kind of biases. However, existing works focus on detecting closed sets of biases defined a priori, limiting the studies to well-known concepts. In this paper, we tackle the challenge of open-set bias detection in text-to-image generative models presenting OpenBias, a new pipeline that identifies and quantifies the severity of biases agnostically, without access to any precompiled set. OpenBias has three stages. In the first phase, we leverage a Large Language Model (LLM) to propose biases given a set of captions. Secondly, the target generative model produces images using the same set of captions. Lastly, a Vision Question Answering model recognizes the presence and extent of the previously proposed biases. We study the behavior of Stable Diffusion 1.5, 2, and XL emphasizing new biases, never investigated before. Via quantitative experiments, we demonstrate that OpenBias agrees with current closed-set bias detection methods and human judgement.

Generative models have demonstrated remarkable capability in synthesizing high-quality text, images, and videos. For video generation, contemporary text-to-video models exhibit impressive capabilities, crafting visually stunning videos. Nonetheless, evaluating such videos poses significant challenges. Current research predominantly employs automated metrics such as FVD, IS, and CLIP Score. However, these metrics provide an incomplete analysis, particularly in the temporal assessment of video content, thus rendering them unreliable indicators of true video quality. Furthermore, while user studies have the potential to reflect human perception accurately, they are hampered by their time-intensive and laborious nature, with outcomes that are often tainted by subjective bias. In this paper, we investigate the limitations inherent in existing metrics and introduce a novel evaluation pipeline, the Text-to-Video Score (T2VScore). This metric integrates two pivotal criteria: (1) Text-Video Alignment, which scrutinizes the fidelity of the video in representing the given text description, and (2) Video Quality, which evaluates the video's overall production caliber with a mixture of experts. Moreover, to evaluate the proposed metrics and facilitate future improvements on them, we present the TVGE dataset, collecting human judgements of 2,543 text-to-video generated videos on the two criteria. Experiments on the TVGE dataset demonstrate the superiority of the proposed T2VScore on offering a better metric for text-to-video generation.

Recent advancements in generative models have revolutionized image generation and editing, making these tasks accessible to non-experts. This paper focuses on local image editing, particularly the task of adding new content to a loosely specified area. Existing methods often require a precise mask or a detailed description of the location, which can be cumbersome and prone to errors. We propose Click2Mask, a novel approach that simplifies the local editing process by requiring only a single point of reference (in addition to the content description). A mask is dynamically grown around this point during a Blended Latent Diffusion (BLD) process, guided by a masked CLIP-based semantic loss. Click2Mask surpasses the limitations of segmentation-based and fine-tuning dependent methods, offering a more user-friendly and contextually accurate solution. Our experiments demonstrate that Click2Mask not only minimizes user effort but also delivers competitive or superior local image manipulation results compared to SoTA methods, according to both human judgement and automatic metrics. Key contributions include the simplification of user input, the ability to freely add objects unconstrained by existing segments, and the integration potential of our dynamic mask approach within other editing methods.

Retrieval-augmented language models are being increasingly tasked with subjective, contentious, and conflicting queries such as "is aspartame linked to cancer". To resolve these ambiguous queries, one must search through a large range of websites and consider "which, if any, of this evidence do I find convincing?". In this work, we study how LLMs answer this question. In particular, we construct ConflictingQA, a dataset that pairs controversial queries with a series of real-world evidence documents that contain different facts (e.g., quantitative results), argument styles (e.g., appeals to authority), and answers (Yes or No). We use this dataset to perform sensitivity and counterfactual analyses to explore which text features most affect LLM predictions. Overall, we find that current models rely heavily on the relevance of a website to the query, while largely ignoring stylistic features that humans find important such as whether a text contains scientific references or is written with a neutral tone. Taken together, these results highlight the importance of RAG corpus quality (e.g., the need to filter misinformation), and possibly even a shift in how LLMs are trained to better align with human judgements.

Automatically determining whether a text and a corresponding image are semantically aligned is a significant challenge for vision-language models, with applications in generative text-to-image and image-to-text tasks. In this work, we study methods for automatic text-image alignment evaluation. We first introduce SeeTRUE: a comprehensive evaluation set, spanning multiple datasets from both text-to-image and image-to-text generation tasks, with human judgements for whether a given text-image pair is semantically aligned. We then describe two automatic methods to determine alignment: the first involving a pipeline based on question generation and visual question answering models, and the second employing an end-to-end classification approach by finetuning multimodal pretrained models. Both methods surpass prior approaches in various text-image alignment tasks, with significant improvements in challenging cases that involve complex composition or unnatural images. Finally, we demonstrate how our approaches can localize specific misalignments between an image and a given text, and how they can be used to automatically re-rank candidates in text-to-image generation.

Automatic metrics are extensively used to evaluate natural language processing systems. However, there has been increasing focus on how they are used and reported by practitioners within the field. In this paper, we have conducted a survey on the use of automatic metrics, focusing particularly on natural language generation (NLG) tasks. We inspect which metrics are used as well as why they are chosen and how their use is reported. Our findings from this survey reveal significant shortcomings, including inappropriate metric usage, lack of implementation details and missing correlations with human judgements. We conclude with recommendations that we believe authors should follow to enable more rigour within the field.

Although neural-based machine translation evaluation metrics, such as COMET or BLEURT, have achieved strong correlations with human judgements, they are sometimes unreliable in detecting certain phenomena that can be considered as critical errors, such as deviations in entities and numbers. In contrast, traditional evaluation metrics, such as BLEU or chrF, which measure lexical or character overlap between translation hypotheses and human references, have lower correlations with human judgements but are sensitive to such deviations. In this paper, we investigate several ways of combining the two approaches in order to increase robustness of state-of-the-art evaluation methods to translations with critical errors. We show that by using additional information during training, such as sentence-level features and word-level tags, the trained metrics improve their capability to penalize translations with specific troublesome phenomena, which leads to gains in correlation with human judgments and on recent challenge sets on several language pairs.

We explore the use of long-context capabilities in large language models to create synthetic reading comprehension data from entire books. Previous efforts to construct such datasets relied on crowd-sourcing, but the emergence of transformers with a context size of 1 million or more tokens now enables entirely automatic approaches. Our objective is to test the capabilities of LLMs to analyze, understand, and reason over problems that require a detailed comprehension of long spans of text, such as questions involving character arcs, broader themes, or the consequences of early actions later in the story. We propose a holistic pipeline for automatic data generation including question generation, answering, and model scoring using an ``Evaluator''. We find that a relative approach, comparing answers between models in a pairwise fashion and ranking with a Bradley-Terry model, provides a more consistent and differentiating scoring mechanism than an absolute scorer that rates answers individually. We also show that LLMs from different model families produce moderate agreement in their ratings. We ground our approach using the manually curated NarrativeQA dataset, where our evaluator shows excellent agreement with human judgement and even finds errors in the dataset. Using our automatic evaluation approach, we show that using an entire book as context produces superior reading comprehension performance compared to baseline no-context (parametric knowledge only) and retrieval-based approaches.

The long-standing one-to-many problem of gold standard responses in open-domain dialogue systems presents challenges for automatic evaluation metrics. Though prior works have demonstrated some success by applying powerful Large Language Models (LLMs), existing approaches still struggle with the one-to-many problem, and exhibit subpar performance in domain-specific scenarios. We assume the commonsense reasoning biases within LLMs may hinder their performance in domainspecific evaluations. To address both issues, we propose a novel framework SLIDE (Small and Large Integrated for Dialogue Evaluation), that leverages both a small, specialised model (SLM), and LLMs for the evaluation of open domain dialogues. Our approach introduces several techniques: (1) Contrastive learning to differentiate between robust and non-robust response embeddings; (2) A novel metric for semantic sensitivity that combines embedding cosine distances with similarity learned through neural networks, and (3) a strategy for incorporating the evaluation results from both the SLM and LLMs. Our empirical results demonstrate that our approach achieves state-of-the-art performance in both the classification and evaluation tasks, and additionally the SLIDE evaluator exhibits better correlation with human judgements. Our code is available at https:// github.com/hegehongcha/SLIDE-ACL2024.

Multimodal foundation models are prone to hallucination, generating outputs that either contradict the input or are not grounded by factual information. Given the diversity in architectures, training data and instruction tuning techniques, there can be large variations in systems' susceptibility to hallucinations. To assess system hallucination robustness, hallucination ranking approaches have been developed for specific tasks such as image captioning, question answering, summarization, or biography generation. However, these approaches typically compare model outputs to gold-standard references or labels, limiting hallucination benchmarking for new domains. This work proposes "CrossCheckGPT", a reference-free universal hallucination ranking for multimodal foundation models. The core idea of CrossCheckGPT is that the same hallucinated content is unlikely to be generated by different independent systems, hence cross-system consistency can provide meaningful and accurate hallucination assessment scores. CrossCheckGPT can be applied to any model or task, provided that the information consistency between outputs can be measured through an appropriate distance metric. Focusing on multimodal large language models that generate text, we explore two information consistency measures: CrossCheck-explicit and CrossCheck-implicit. We showcase the applicability of our method for hallucination ranking across various modalities, namely the text, image, and audio-visual domains. Further, we propose the first audio-visual hallucination benchmark, "AVHalluBench", and illustrate the effectiveness of CrossCheckGPT, achieving correlations of 98% and 89% with human judgements on MHaluBench and AVHalluBench, respectively.

Action quality assessment (AQA) applies computer vision to quantitatively assess the performance or execution of a human action. Current AQA approaches are end-to-end neural models, which lack transparency and tend to be biased because they are trained on subjective human judgements as ground-truth. To address these issues, we introduce a neuro-symbolic paradigm for AQA, which uses neural networks to abstract interpretable symbols from video data and makes quality assessments by applying rules to those symbols. We take diving as the case study. We found that domain experts prefer our system and find it more informative than purely neural approaches to AQA in diving. Our system also achieves state-of-the-art action recognition and temporal segmentation, and automatically generates a detailed report that breaks the dive down into its elements and provides objective scoring with visual evidence. As verified by a group of domain experts, this report may be used to assist judges in scoring, help train judges, and provide feedback to divers. We will open-source all of our annotated training data and code for ease of reproducibility.

Automatic evaluation of natural language generation has long been an elusive goal in NLP.A recent paradigm fine-tunes pre-trained language models to emulate human judgements for a particular task and evaluation criterion. Inspired by the generalization ability of instruction-tuned models, we propose a learned metric based on instruction tuning. To test our approach, we collected HEAP, a dataset of human judgements across various NLG tasks and evaluation criteria. Our findings demonstrate that instruction tuning language models on HEAP yields good performance on many evaluation tasks, though some criteria are less trivial to learn than others. Further, jointly training on multiple tasks can yield additional performance improvements, which can be beneficial for future tasks with little to no human annotated data.

If a question cannot be answered with the available information, robust systems for question answering (QA) should know _not_ to answer. One way to build QA models that do this is with additional training data comprised of unanswerable questions, created either by employing annotators or through automated methods for unanswerable question generation. To show that the model complexity of existing automated approaches is not justified, we examine a simpler data augmentation method for unanswerable question generation in English: performing antonym and entity swaps on answerable questions. Compared to the prior state-of-the-art, data generated with our training-free and lightweight strategy results in better models (+1.6 F1 points on SQuAD 2.0 data with BERT-large), and has higher human-judged relatedness and readability. We quantify the raw benefits of our approach compared to no augmentation across multiple encoder models, using different amounts of generated data, and also on TydiQA-MinSpan data (+9.3 F1 points with BERT-large). Our results establish swaps as a simple but strong baseline for future work.

Readability refers to how easily a reader can understand a written text. Several factors affect the readability level, such as the complexity of the text, its subject matter, and the reader's background knowledge. Generating summaries based on different readability levels is critical for enabling knowledge consumption by diverse audiences. However, current text generation approaches lack refined control, resulting in texts that are not customized to readers' proficiency levels. In this work, we bridge this gap and study techniques to generate summaries at specified readability levels. Unlike previous methods that focus on a specific readability level (e.g., lay summarization), we generate summaries with fine-grained control over their readability. We develop three text generation techniques for controlling readability: (1) instruction-based readability control, (2) reinforcement learning to minimize the gap between requested and observed readability and (3) a decoding approach that uses lookahead to estimate the readability of upcoming decoding steps. We show that our generation methods significantly improve readability control on news summarization (CNN/DM dataset), as measured by various readability metrics and human judgement, establishing strong baselines for controllable readability in summarization.

We present the joint contribution of Unbabel and Instituto Superior T\'ecnico to the WMT 2023 Shared Task on Quality Estimation (QE). Our team participated on all tasks: sentence- and word-level quality prediction (task 1) and fine-grained error span detection (task 2). For all tasks, we build on the COMETKIWI-22 model (Rei et al., 2022b). Our multilingual approaches are ranked first for all tasks, reaching state-of-the-art performance for quality estimation at word-, span- and sentence-level granularity. Compared to the previous state-of-the-art COMETKIWI-22, we show large improvements in correlation with human judgements (up to 10 Spearman points). Moreover, we surpass the second-best multilingual submission to the shared-task with up to 3.8 absolute points.

Most research about natural language generation (NLG) relies on evaluation benchmarks with limited references for a sample, which may result in poor correlations with human judgements. The underlying reason is that one semantic meaning can actually be expressed in different forms, and the evaluation with a single or few references may not accurately reflect the quality of the model's hypotheses. To address this issue, this paper presents a simple and effective method, named Div-Ref, to enhance existing evaluation benchmarks by enriching the number of references. We leverage large language models (LLMs) to diversify the expression of a single reference into multiple high-quality ones to cover the semantic space of the reference sentence as much as possible. We conduct comprehensive experiments to empirically demonstrate that diversifying the expression of reference can significantly enhance the correlation between automatic evaluation and human evaluation. This idea is compatible with recent LLM-based evaluation which can similarly derive advantages from incorporating multiple references. We strongly encourage future generation benchmarks to include more references, even if they are generated by LLMs, which is once for all. We release all the code and data at https://github.com/RUCAIBox/Div-Ref to facilitate research.

Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as a widely-used tool for information seeking, but their generated outputs are prone to hallucination. In this work, we aim to enable LLMs to generate text with citations, improving their factual correctness and verifiability. Existing work mainly relies on commercial search engines and human evaluation, making it challenging to reproduce and compare with different modeling approaches. We propose ALCE, the first benchmark for Automatic LLMs' Citation Evaluation. ALCE collects a diverse set of questions and retrieval corpora and requires building end-to-end systems to retrieve supporting evidence and generate answers with citations. We build automatic metrics along three dimensions -- fluency, correctness, and citation quality -- and demonstrate their strong correlation with human judgements. Our experiments with state-of-the-art LLMs and novel prompting strategies show that current systems have considerable room for improvements -- for example, on the ELI5 dataset, even the best model has 49% of its generations lacking complete citation support. Our extensive analyses further highlight promising future directions, including developing better retrievers, advancing long-context LLMs, and improving the ability to synthesize information from multiple sources.

The performance of text summarization has been greatly boosted by pre-trained language models. A main concern of existing methods is that most generated summaries are not factually inconsistent with their source documents. To alleviate the problem, many efforts have focused on developing effective factuality evaluation metrics based on natural language inference, question answering, and syntactic dependency et al. However, these approaches are limited by either their high computational complexity or the uncertainty introduced by multi-component pipelines, resulting in only partial agreement with human judgement. Most recently, large language models(LLMs) have shown excellent performance in not only text generation but also language comprehension. In this paper, we particularly explore ChatGPT's ability to evaluate factual inconsistency under a zero-shot setting by examining it on both coarse-grained and fine-grained evaluation tasks including binary entailment inference, summary ranking, and consistency rating. Experimental results indicate that ChatGPT generally outperforms previous evaluation metrics across the three tasks, indicating its great potential for factual inconsistency evaluation. However, a closer inspection of ChatGPT's output reveals certain limitations including its preference for more lexically similar candidates, false reasoning, and inadequate understanding of instructions.

The development of Open-Domain Dialogue Systems (ODS)is a trending topic due to the large number of research challenges, large societal and business impact, and advances in the underlying technology. However, the development of these kinds of systems requires two important characteristics:1) automatic evaluation mechanisms that show high correlations with human judgements across multiple dialogue evaluation aspects (with explainable features for providing constructive and explicit feedback on the quality of generative models' responses for quick development and deployment)and 2) mechanisms that can help to control chatbot responses,while avoiding toxicity and employing intelligent ways to handle toxic user comments and keeping interaction flow and engagement. This track at the 10th Dialogue System Technology Challenge (DSTC10) is part of the ongoing effort to promote scalable and toxic-free ODS. This paper describes the datasets and baselines provided to participants, as well as submission evaluation results for each of the two proposed subtasks.

Image captioning has conventionally relied on reference-based automatic evaluations, where machine captions are compared against captions written by humans. This is in contrast to the reference-free manner in which humans assess caption quality. In this paper, we report the surprising empirical finding that CLIP (Radford et al., 2021), a cross-modal model pretrained on 400M image+caption pairs from the web, can be used for robust automatic evaluation of image captioning without the need for references. Experiments spanning several corpora demonstrate that our new reference-free metric, CLIPScore, achieves the highest correlation with human judgements, outperforming existing reference-based metrics like CIDEr and SPICE. Information gain experiments demonstrate that CLIPScore, with its tight focus on image-text compatibility, is complementary to existing reference-based metrics that emphasize text-text similarities. Thus, we also present a reference-augmented version, RefCLIPScore, which achieves even higher correlation. Beyond literal description tasks, several case studies reveal domains where CLIPScore performs well (clip-art images, alt-text rating), but also where it is relatively weaker in comparison to reference-based metrics, e.g., news captions that require richer contextual knowledge.

Neural knowledge-grounded generative models for dialogue often produce content that is factually inconsistent with the knowledge they rely on, making them unreliable and limiting their applicability. Inspired by recent work on evaluating factual consistency in abstractive summarization, we propose an automatic evaluation metric for factual consistency in knowledge-grounded dialogue using automatic question generation and question answering. Our metric, denoted Q^2, compares answer spans using natural language inference (NLI), instead of token-based matching as done in previous work. To foster proper evaluation, we curate a novel dataset of dialogue system outputs for the Wizard-of-Wikipedia dataset, manually annotated for factual consistency. We perform a thorough meta-evaluation of Q^2 against other metrics using this dataset and two others, where it consistently shows higher correlation with human judgements.

We study the problem of imposing conversational goals/keywords on open-domain conversational agents, where the agent is required to lead the conversation to a target keyword smoothly and fast. Solving this problem enables the application of conversational agents in many real-world scenarios, e.g., recommendation and psychotherapy. The dominant paradigm for tackling this problem is to 1) train a next-turn keyword classifier, and 2) train a keyword-augmented response retrieval model. However, existing approaches in this paradigm have two limitations: 1) the training and evaluation datasets for next-turn keyword classification are directly extracted from conversations without human annotations, thus, they are noisy and have low correlation with human judgements, and 2) during keyword transition, the agents solely rely on the similarities between word embeddings to move closer to the target keyword, which may not reflect how humans converse. In this paper, we assume that human conversations are grounded on commonsense and propose a keyword-guided neural conversational model that can leverage external commonsense knowledge graphs (CKG) for both keyword transition and response retrieval. Automatic evaluations suggest that commonsense improves the performance of both next-turn keyword prediction and keyword-augmented response retrieval. In addition, both self-play and human evaluations show that our model produces responses with smoother keyword transition and reaches the target keyword faster than competitive baselines.

We present NUBIA, a methodology to build automatic evaluation metrics for text generation using only machine learning models as core components. A typical NUBIA model is composed of three modules: a neural feature extractor, an aggregator and a calibrator. We demonstrate an implementation of NUBIA which outperforms metrics currently used to evaluate machine translation, summaries and slightly exceeds/matches state of the art metrics on correlation with human judgement on the WMT segment-level Direct Assessment task, sentence-level ranking and image captioning evaluation. The model implemented is modular, explainable and set to continuously improve over time.

Recently, there has been a growing trend of utilizing Large Language Model (LLM) to evaluate the quality of other LLMs. Many studies have employed proprietary close-source models, especially GPT4, as the evaluator. Alternatively, other works have fine-tuned judge models based on open-source LLMs as the evaluator. In this study, we conduct an empirical study of different judge models on their evaluation capability. Our findings indicate that although the fine-tuned judge models achieve high accuracy on in-domain test sets, even surpassing GPT4, they are inherently task-specific classifiers, and their generalizability and fairness severely underperform GPT4.

Common law courts need to refer to similar precedents' judgments to inform their current decisions. Generating high-quality summaries of court judgment documents can facilitate legal practitioners to efficiently review previous cases and assist the general public in accessing how the courts operate and how the law is applied. Previous court judgment summarization research focuses on civil law or a particular jurisdiction's judgments. However, judges can refer to the judgments from all common law jurisdictions. Current summarization datasets are insufficient to satisfy the demands of summarizing precedents across multiple jurisdictions, especially when labeled data are scarce for many jurisdictions. To address the lack of datasets, we present CLSum, the first dataset for summarizing multi-jurisdictional common law court judgment documents. Besides, this is the first court judgment summarization work adopting large language models (LLMs) in data augmentation, summary generation, and evaluation. Specifically, we design an LLM-based data augmentation method incorporating legal knowledge. We also propose a legal knowledge enhanced evaluation metric based on LLM to assess the quality of generated judgment summaries. Our experimental results verify that the LLM-based summarization methods can perform well in the few-shot and zero-shot settings. Our LLM-based data augmentation method can mitigate the impact of low data resources. Furthermore, we carry out comprehensive comparative experiments to find essential model components and settings that are capable of enhancing summarization performance.

Predicting case outcomes is useful but still an extremely hard task for attorneys and other Law professionals. It is not easy to search case information to extract valuable information as this requires dealing with huge data sets and their complexity. For instance, the complexity of Brazil legal system along with the high litigation rates makes this problem even harder. This paper introduces an approach for predicting Brazilian court decisions which is also able to predict whether the decision will be unanimous. We developed a working prototype which performs 79% of accuracy (F1-score) on a data set composed of 4,043 cases from a Brazilian court. To our knowledge, this is the first study to forecast judge decisions in Brazil.

Legal judgment prediction is essential for enhancing judicial efficiency. In this work, we identify that existing large language models (LLMs) underperform in this domain due to challenges in understanding case complexities and distinguishing between similar charges. To adapt LLMs for effective legal judgment prediction, we introduce the Ask-Discriminate-Predict (ADAPT) reasoning framework inspired by human judicial reasoning. ADAPT involves decomposing case facts, discriminating among potential charges, and predicting the final judgment. We further enhance LLMs through fine-tuning with multi-task synthetic trajectories to improve legal judgment prediction accuracy and efficiency under our ADAPT framework. Extensive experiments conducted on two widely-used datasets demonstrate the superior performance of our framework in legal judgment prediction, particularly when dealing with complex and confusing charges.

A key challenge on the path to developing agents that learn complex human-like behavior is the need to quickly and accurately quantify human-likeness. While human assessments of such behavior can be highly accurate, speed and scalability are limited. We address these limitations through a novel automated Navigation Turing Test (ANTT) that learns to predict human judgments of human-likeness. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our automated NTT on a navigation task in a complex 3D environment. We investigate six classification models to shed light on the types of architectures best suited to this task, and validate them against data collected through a human NTT. Our best models achieve high accuracy when distinguishing true human and agent behavior. At the same time, we show that predicting finer-grained human assessment of agents' progress towards human-like behavior remains unsolved. Our work takes an important step towards agents that more effectively learn complex human-like behavior.

In Switzerland legal translation is uniquely important due to the country's four official languages and requirements for multilingual legal documentation. However, this process traditionally relies on professionals who must be both legal experts and skilled translators -- creating bottlenecks and impacting effective access to justice. To address this challenge, we introduce SwiLTra-Bench, a comprehensive multilingual benchmark of over 180K aligned Swiss legal translation pairs comprising laws, headnotes, and press releases across all Swiss languages along with English, designed to evaluate LLM-based translation systems. Our systematic evaluation reveals that frontier models achieve superior translation performance across all document types, while specialized translation systems excel specifically in laws but under-perform in headnotes. Through rigorous testing and human expert validation, we demonstrate that while fine-tuning open SLMs significantly improves their translation quality, they still lag behind the best zero-shot prompted frontier models such as Claude-3.5-Sonnet. Additionally, we present SwiLTra-Judge, a specialized LLM evaluation system that aligns best with human expert assessments.

Humans have long been recorded in a variety of forms since antiquity. For example, sculptures and paintings were the primary media for depicting human beings before the invention of cameras. However, most current human-centric computer vision tasks like human pose estimation and human image generation focus exclusively on natural images in the real world. Artificial humans, such as those in sculptures, paintings, and cartoons, are commonly neglected, making existing models fail in these scenarios. As an abstraction of life, art incorporates humans in both natural and artificial scenes. We take advantage of it and introduce the Human-Art dataset to bridge related tasks in natural and artificial scenarios. Specifically, Human-Art contains 50k high-quality images with over 123k person instances from 5 natural and 15 artificial scenarios, which are annotated with bounding boxes, keypoints, self-contact points, and text information for humans represented in both 2D and 3D. It is, therefore, comprehensive and versatile for various downstream tasks. We also provide a rich set of baseline results and detailed analyses for related tasks, including human detection, 2D and 3D human pose estimation, image generation, and motion transfer. As a challenging dataset, we hope Human-Art can provide insights for relevant research and open up new research questions.

As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly intelligent---in some cases, achieving superhuman performance---there is growing potential for humans to learn from and collaborate with algorithms. However, the ways in which AI systems approach problems are often different from the ways people do, and thus may be uninterpretable and hard to learn from. A crucial step in bridging this gap between human and artificial intelligence is modeling the granular actions that constitute human behavior, rather than simply matching aggregate human performance. We pursue this goal in a model system with a long history in artificial intelligence: chess. The aggregate performance of a chess player unfolds as they make decisions over the course of a game. The hundreds of millions of games played online by players at every skill level form a rich source of data in which these decisions, and their exact context, are recorded in minute detail. Applying existing chess engines to this data, including an open-source implementation of AlphaZero, we find that they do not predict human moves well. We develop and introduce Maia, a customized version of Alpha-Zero trained on human chess games, that predicts human moves at a much higher accuracy than existing engines, and can achieve maximum accuracy when predicting decisions made by players at a specific skill level in a tuneable way. For a dual task of predicting whether a human will make a large mistake on the next move, we develop a deep neural network that significantly outperforms competitive baselines. Taken together, our results suggest that there is substantial promise in designing artificial intelligence systems with human collaboration in mind by first accurately modeling granular human decision-making.

AI systems are becoming increasingly intertwined with human life. In order to effectively collaborate with humans and ensure safety, AI systems need to be able to understand, interpret and predict human moral judgments and decisions. Human moral judgments are often guided by rules, but not always. A central challenge for AI safety is capturing the flexibility of the human moral mind -- the ability to determine when a rule should be broken, especially in novel or unusual situations. In this paper, we present a novel challenge set consisting of rule-breaking question answering (RBQA) of cases that involve potentially permissible rule-breaking -- inspired by recent moral psychology studies. Using a state-of-the-art large language model (LLM) as a basis, we propose a novel moral chain of thought (MORALCOT) prompting strategy that combines the strengths of LLMs with theories of moral reasoning developed in cognitive science to predict human moral judgments. MORALCOT outperforms seven existing LLMs by 6.2% F1, suggesting that modeling human reasoning might be necessary to capture the flexibility of the human moral mind. We also conduct a detailed error analysis to suggest directions for future work to improve AI safety using RBQA. Our data is open-sourced at https://huggingface.co/datasets/feradauto/MoralExceptQA and code at https://github.com/feradauto/MoralCoT