相关论文: When Models Disagree: Rethinking LLM Evaluation fo…

NLP benchmarks rely on standardized datasets for training and evaluating models and are crucial for advancing the field. Traditionally, expert annotations ensure high-quality labels; however, the cost of expert annotation does not scale…

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly relied upon to evaluate text outputs of other LLMs, thereby influencing leaderboards and development decisions. However, concerns persist over the accuracy of these assessments and the potential…

The rise of large language models (LLMs) has brought a critical need for high-quality human-labeled data, particularly for processes like human feedback and evaluation. A common practice is to label data via consensus annotation over human…

Large language models (LLMs) can exhibit concept-conditioned semantic divergence: common high-level cues (e.g., ideologies, public figures) elicit unusually uniform, stance-like responses that evade token-trigger audits. This behavior falls…

Large Language Models (LLMs) have been used as relevance assessors for Information Retrieval (IR) evaluation collection creation due to reduced cost and increased scalability as compared to human assessors. While previous research has…

Unsupervised methods are widely used to induce latent semantic structure from large text collections, yet their outputs often contain incoherent, redundant, or poorly grounded clusters that are difficult to validate without labeled data. We…

Commonsense knowledge, a major constituent of artificial intelligence (AI), is primarily evaluated in practice by human-prescribed ground-truth labels. An important, albeit implicit, assumption of these labels is that they accurately…

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in handling complex dialogue tasks without requiring use case-specific fine-tuning. However, analyzing live dialogues in real-time necessitates low-latency processing…

The rapid rise in popularity of Large Language Models (LLMs) with emerging capabilities has spurred public curiosity to evaluate and compare different LLMs, leading many researchers to propose their own LLM benchmarks. Noticing preliminary…

In this position paper, we argue that the classical evaluation on Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks using annotated benchmarks is in trouble. The worst kind of data contamination happens when a Large Language Model (LLM) is trained on…

Large Language Models (LLMs) are promising analytical tools. They can augment human epistemic, cognitive and reasoning abilities, and support 'sensemaking', making sense of a complex environment or subject by analysing large volumes of data…

Large language model (LLM) evaluations often assume there is a single correct response -- a gold label -- for each item in the evaluation corpus. However, some tasks can be ambiguous -- i.e., they provide insufficient information to…

Annotator disagreement is widespread in NLP, particularly for subjective and ambiguous tasks such as toxicity detection and stance analysis. While early approaches treated disagreement as noise to be removed, recent work increasingly models…

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in natural language understanding and generation, but the quality bar for medical and clinical applications is high. Today, attempts to assess models' clinical knowledge…

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to open-ended, interpretive annotation tasks, such as thematic analysis by researchers or generating feedback on student work by teachers. These tasks involve free-text annotations…

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in decision-making tasks like r\'esum\'e screening and content moderation, giving them the power to amplify or suppress certain perspectives. While previous research has identified…

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly evaluated and sometimes trained using automated graders such as LLM-as-judges that output scalar scores or preferences. While convenient, these approaches are often opaque: a single score rarely…

There is an increasing trend towards evaluating NLP models with LLMs instead of human judgments, raising questions about the validity of these evaluations, as well as their reproducibility in the case of proprietary models. We provide…

The paper introduces a framework for the evaluation of the encoding of factual scientific knowledge, designed to streamline the manual evaluation process typically conducted by domain experts. Inferring over and extracting information from…

Public health reasoning requires population level inference grounded in scientific evidence, expert consensus, and safety constraints. However, it remains underexplored as a structured machine learning problem with limited supervised…