SelectLLM: Can LLMs Select Important Instructions to Annotate?

Training large language models (LLMs) with a large and diverse instruction dataset aligns the models to comprehend and follow human instructions. Recent works have shown that using a small set of high-quality instructions can outperform using large yet more noisy ones. Because instructions are unlabeled and their responses are natural text, traditional active learning schemes with the model's confidence cannot be directly applied to the selection of unlabeled instructions. In this work, we propose a novel method for instruction selection, called SelectLLM, that leverages LLMs for the selection of high-quality instructions. Our high-level idea is to use LLMs to estimate the usefulness and impactfulness of each instruction without the corresponding labels (i.e., responses), via prompting. SelectLLM involves two steps: dividing the unlabelled instructions using a clustering algorithm (e.g., CoreSet) to multiple clusters, and then prompting LLMs to choose high-quality instructions within each cluster. SelectLLM showed comparable or slightly better performance on the popular instruction benchmarks, compared to the recent state-of-the-art selection methods. All code and data are publicly available (https://github.com/minnesotanlp/select-llm).

Benchmarking Cognitive Biases in Large Language Models as Evaluators

Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently been shown to be effective as automatic evaluators with simple prompting and in-context learning. In this work, we assemble 15 LLMs of four different size ranges and evaluate their output responses by preference ranking from the other LLMs as evaluators, such as System Star is better than System Square. We then evaluate the quality of ranking outputs introducing the Cognitive Bias Benchmark for LLMs as Evaluators (CoBBLEr), a benchmark to measure six different cognitive biases in LLM evaluation outputs, such as the Egocentric bias where a model prefers to rank its own outputs highly in evaluation. We find that LLMs are biased text quality evaluators, exhibiting strong indications on our bias benchmark (average of 40% of comparisons across all models) within each of their evaluations that question their robustness as evaluators. Furthermore, we examine the correlation between human and machine preferences and calculate the average Rank-Biased Overlap (RBO) score to be 49.6%, indicating that machine preferences are misaligned with humans. According to our findings, LLMs may still be unable to be utilized for automatic annotation aligned with human preferences. Our project page is at: https://minnesotanlp.github.io/cobbler.