Research Area: Alignment, Data, Evaluation
Keywords: commonsense reasoning, free-text explanations, LLM-as-a-judge, human alignment
TL;DR: We present a new dataset of explanations and aspect-wise quality ratings and use it to analyze how LLMs evaluate explanations.
Abstract: Evaluating the quality of free-text explanations is a multifaceted, subjective, and labor-intensive task. Large language models (LLMs) present an appealing alternative due to their potential for consistency, scalability, and cost-efficiency. In this work, we present ACORN, a new dataset of 3,500 free-text explanations and aspect-wise quality ratings, and use it to evaluate how LLMs rate explanations. We observed that larger models outputted labels that maintained or increased the inter-annotator agreement, suggesting that they are within the expected variance between human raters. However, their correlation with majority-voted human ratings varied across different quality aspects, indicating that they are not a complete replacement. In turn, using LLMs as a supplement to a smaller group of human raters in some cases improved the correlation with the original majority labels. However, the effect was limited to cases where human raters were scarce, and an additional human rater had a more pronounced effect in all cases. Overall, we recommend against using LLMs as a complete replacement for human raters but encourage using them in configurations that end with targeted human involvement.
Supplementary Material: zip
Code Of Ethics: I acknowledge that I and all co-authors of this work have read and commit to adhering to the COLM Code of Ethics on https://colmweb.org/CoE.html
Author Guide: I certify that this submission complies with the submission instructions as described on https://colmweb.org/AuthorGuide.html
Submission Number: 1435
Loading