LLMs instead of Human Judges? A Large Scale Empirical Study across 20 NLP Evaluation Tasks
Authors:
Anna Bavaresco,
Raffaella Bernardi,
Leonardo Bertolazzi,
Desmond Elliott,
Raquel Fernández,
Albert Gatt,
Esam Ghaleb,
Mario Giulianelli,
Michael Hanna,
Alexander Koller,
André F. T. Martins,
Philipp Mondorf,
Vera Neplenbroek,
Sandro Pezzelle,
Barbara Plank,
David Schlangen,
Alessandro Suglia,
Aditya K Surikuchi,
Ece Takmaz,
Alberto Testoni
Abstract:
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 anno…
▽ More
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.
△ Less
Submitted 26 June, 2024;
originally announced June 2024.
A Systematic Analysis of Large Language Models as Soft Reasoners: The Case of Syllogistic Inferences
Authors:
Leonardo Bertolazzi,
Albert Gatt,
Raffaella Bernardi
Abstract:
The reasoning abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) are becoming a central focus of study in NLP. In this paper, we consider the case of syllogistic reasoning, an area of deductive reasoning studied extensively in logic and cognitive psychology. Previous research has shown that pre-trained LLMs exhibit reasoning biases, such as $\textit{content effects}$, avoid answering that…
▽ More
The reasoning abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) are becoming a central focus of study in NLP. In this paper, we consider the case of syllogistic reasoning, an area of deductive reasoning studied extensively in logic and cognitive psychology. Previous research has shown that pre-trained LLMs exhibit reasoning biases, such as $\textit{content effects}$, avoid answering that $\textit{no conclusion follows}$, display human-like difficulties, and struggle with multi-step reasoning. We contribute to this research line by systematically investigating the effects of chain-of-thought reasoning, in-context learning (ICL), and supervised fine-tuning (SFT) on syllogistic reasoning, considering syllogisms with conclusions that support or violate world knowledge, as well as ones with multiple premises. Crucially, we go beyond the standard focus on accuracy, with an in-depth analysis of the conclusions generated by the models. Our results suggest that the behavior of pre-trained LLMs can be explained by heuristics studied in cognitive science and that both ICL and SFT improve model performance on valid inferences, although only the latter mitigates most reasoning biases without harming model consistency.
△ Less
Submitted 17 June, 2024;
originally announced June 2024.
