Large Language Models Are Effective Human Annotation Assistants, But Not Good Independent Annotators

Event annotation is important for identifying market changes, monitoring breaking news, and understanding sociological trends. Although expert annotators set the gold standards, human coding is expensive and inefficient. Unlike information extraction experiments that focus on single contexts, we evaluate a holistic workflow that removes irrelevant documents, merges documents about the same event, and annotates the events. Although LLM-based automated annotations are better than traditional TF-IDF-based methods or Event Set Curation, they are still not reliable annotators compared to human experts. However, adding LLMs to assist experts for Event Set Curation can reduce the time and mental effort required for Variable Annotation. When using LLMs to extract event variables to assist expert annotators, they agree more with the extracted variables than fully automated LLMs for annotation.

GRACE: A Granular Benchmark for Evaluating Model Calibration against Human Calibration

Language models are often miscalibrated, leading to confidently incorrect answers. We introduce GRACE, a benchmark for language model calibration that incorporates comparison with human calibration. GRACE consists of question-answer pairs, in which each question contains a series of clues that gradually become easier, all leading to the same answer; models must answer correctly as early as possible as the clues are revealed. This setting permits granular measurement of model calibration based on how early, accurately, and confidently a model answers. After collecting these questions, we host live human vs. model competitions to gather 1,749 data points on human and model teams' timing, accuracy, and confidence. We propose a metric, CalScore, that uses GRACE to analyze model calibration errors and identify types of model miscalibration that differ from human behavior. We find that although humans are less accurate than models, humans are generally better calibrated. Since state-of-the-art models struggle on GRACE, it effectively evaluates progress on improving model calibration.

Which of These Best Describes Multiple Choice Evaluation with LLMs? A) Forced B) Flawed C) Fixable D) All of the Above

Multiple choice question answering (MCQA) is popular for LLM evaluation due to its simplicity and human-like testing, but we argue for its reform. We first reveal flaws in MCQA's format, as it struggles to: 1) test generation/subjectivity; 2) match LLM use cases; and 3) fully test knowledge. We instead advocate for generative formats based on human testing-where LLMs construct and explain answers-better capturing user needs and knowledge while remaining easy to score. We then show even when MCQA is a useful format, its datasets suffer from: leakage; unanswerability; shortcuts; and saturation. In each issue, we give fixes from education, like rubrics to guide MCQ writing; scoring methods to bridle guessing; and Item Response Theory to build harder MCQs. Lastly, we discuss LLM errors in MCQA-robustness, biases, and unfaithful explanations-showing how our prior solutions better measure or address these issues. While we do not need to desert MCQA, we encourage more efforts in refining the task based on educational testing, advancing evaluations.

Should I Trust You? Detecting Deception in Negotiations using Counterfactual RL

An increasingly prevalent socio-technical problem is people being taken in by offers that sound ``too good to be true'', where persuasion and trust shape decision-making. This paper investigates how \abr{ai} can help detect these deceptive scenarios. We analyze how humans strategically deceive each other in \textit{Diplomacy}, a board game that requires both natural language communication and strategic reasoning. This requires extracting logical forms of proposed agreements in player communications and computing the relative rewards of the proposal using agents' value functions. Combined with text-based features, this can improve our deception detection. Our method detects human deception with a high precision when compared to a Large Language Model approach that flags many true messages as deceptive. Future human-\abr{ai} interaction tools can build on our methods for deception detection by triggering \textit{friction} to give users a chance of interrogating suspicious proposals.

Whose Boat Does it Float? Improving Personalization in Preference Tuning via Inferred User Personas

LLMs are tuned to follow instructions (aligned) by learning which of two outputs users prefer for a prompt. However, this preference data format does not convey why users prefer responses that are chosen or rejected, so LLMs trained on these datasets cannot tailor responses to varied user needs. To surface these parameters of personalization, we apply abductive reasoning to preference data, inferring needs and interests of users, i.e. personas, that may prefer each output. We test this idea in two steps: Persona Inference (PI)-abductively inferring personas of users who prefer chosen or rejected outputs-and Persona Tailoring (PT)-training models to tailor responses to personas from PI. We find: 1) LLMs infer personas accurately explaining why different users may prefer both chosen or rejected outputs; 2) Training on preference data augmented with PI personas via PT boosts personalization, enabling models to support user-written personas; and 3) Rejected response personas form harder personalization evaluations, showing PT better aids users with uncommon preferences versus typical alignment methods. We argue for an abductive view of preferences for personalization, asking not only which response is better but when, why, and for whom.

Personalized Help for Optimizing Low-Skilled Users' Strategy

AIs can beat humans in game environments; however, how helpful those agents are to human remains understudied. We augment CICERO, a natural language agent that demonstrates superhuman performance in Diplomacy, to generate both move and message advice based on player intentions. A dozen Diplomacy games with novice and experienced players, with varying advice settings, show that some of the generated advice is beneficial. It helps novices compete with experienced players and in some instances even surpass them. The mere presence of advice can be advantageous, even if players do not follow it.

ADVSCORE: A Metric for the Evaluation and Creation of Adversarial Benchmarks

Adversarial benchmarks validate model abilities by providing samples that fool models but not humans. However, despite the proliferation of datasets that claim to be adversarial, there does not exist an established metric to evaluate how adversarial these datasets are. To address this lacuna, we introduce ADVSCORE, a metric which quantifies how adversarial and discriminative an adversarial dataset is and exposes the features that make data adversarial. We then use ADVSCORE to underpin a dataset creation pipeline that incentivizes writing a high-quality adversarial dataset. As a proof of concept, we use ADVSCORE to collect an adversarial question answering (QA) dataset, ADVQA, from our pipeline. The high-quality questions in ADVQA surpasses three adversarial benchmarks across domains at fooling several models but not humans. We validate our result based on difficulty estimates from 9,347 human responses on four datasets and predictions from three models. Moreover, ADVSCORE uncovers which adversarial tactics used by human writers fool models (e.g., GPT-4) but not humans. Through ADVSCORE and its analyses, we offer guidance on revealing language model vulnerabilities and producing reliable adversarial examples.

AUTOHALLUSION: Automatic Generation of Hallucination Benchmarks for Vision-Language Models

Large vision-language models (LVLMs) hallucinate: certain context cues in an image may trigger the language module's overconfident and incorrect reasoning on abnormal or hypothetical objects. Though a few benchmarks have been developed to investigate LVLM hallucinations, they mainly rely on hand-crafted corner cases whose fail patterns may hardly generalize, and finetuning on them could undermine their validity. These motivate us to develop the first automatic benchmark generation approach, AUTOHALLUSION, that harnesses a few principal strategies to create diverse hallucination examples. It probes the language modules in LVLMs for context cues and uses them to synthesize images by: (1) adding objects abnormal to the context cues; (2) for two co-occurring objects, keeping one and excluding the other; or (3) removing objects closely tied to the context cues. It then generates image-based questions whose ground-truth answers contradict the language module's prior. A model has to overcome contextual biases and distractions to reach correct answers, while incorrect or inconsistent answers indicate hallucinations. AUTOHALLUSION enables us to create new benchmarks at the minimum cost and thus overcomes the fragility of hand-crafted benchmarks. It also reveals common failure patterns and reasons, providing key insights to detect, avoid, or control hallucinations. Comprehensive evaluations of top-tier LVLMs, e.g., GPT-4V(ision), Gemini Pro Vision, Claude 3, and LLaVA-1.5, show a 97.7% and 98.7% success rate of hallucination induction on synthetic and real-world datasets of AUTOHALLUSION, paving the way for a long battle against hallucinations.

More Victories, Less Cooperation: Assessing Cicero's Diplomacy Play

The boardgame Diplomacy is a challenging setting for communicative and cooperative artificial intelligence. The most prominent communicative Diplomacy AI, Cicero, has excellent strategic abilities, exceeding human players. However, the best Diplomacy players master communication, not just tactics, which is why the game has received attention as an AI challenge. This work seeks to understand the degree to which Cicero succeeds at communication. First, we annotate in-game communication with abstract meaning representation to separate in-game tactics from general language. Second, we run two dozen games with humans and Cicero, totaling over 200 human-player hours of competition. While AI can consistently outplay human players, AI-Human communication is still limited because of AI's difficulty with deception and persuasion. This shows that Cicero relies on strategy and has not yet reached the full promise of communicative and cooperative AI.

PANDA (Pedantic ANswer-correctness Determination and Adjudication):Improving Automatic Evaluation for Question Answering and Text Generation

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 answer correctness (AC) metrics do not align with human judgments, particularly 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 correlate better with humans, but this expensive task has only been tested on limited QA datasets. We rectify these issues by providing clear guidelines for evaluating machine QA adopted from human QA contests. We also introduce Precise ANswer correctness Determination and Adjudication (PANDA), a small, efficient, deterministic AC classifier (812 KB) that more accurately evaluates answer correctness.