Seth Aycock

Nadezhda Chirkova, Tunde Oluwaseyi Ajayi, Seth Aycock et al.

Prompting large language models (LLMs) to evaluate generated text, known as LLM-as-a-judge, has become a standard evaluation approach in natural language generation (NLG), but is primarily used as a quantitative tool, i.e. with numerical scores as main outputs. In this work, we propose LLM-as-a-qualitative-judge, an LLM-based evaluation approach with the main output being a structured report of common issue types in the NLG system outputs. Our approach is targeted at providing developers with meaningful insights on what improvements can be done to a given NLG system and consists of two main steps, namely open-ended per-instance issue analysis and clustering of the discovered issues using an intuitive cumulative algorithm. We also introduce a strategy for evaluating the proposed approach, coupled with ~300 annotations of issues in instances from 12 NLG datasets. Our results show that instance-specific issues output by LLM-as-a-qualitative-judge match those annotated by humans in 2/3 cases, and that LLM-as-a-qualitative-judge is capable of producing error type reports resembling the reports composed by human annotators. We also demonstrate in a case study how the use of LLM-as-a-qualitative-judge can substantially improve NLG systems performance. Our code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/tunde-ajayi/llm-as-a-qualitative-judge.

Di Wu, Seth Aycock, Christof Monz

Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate strong reasoning capabilities for many tasks, often by explicitly decomposing the task via Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning. Recent work on LLM-based translation designs hand-crafted prompts to decompose translation, or trains models to incorporate intermediate steps. Translating Step-by-step (Briakou et al., 2024), for instance, introduces a multi-step prompt with decomposition and refinement of translation with LLMs, which achieved state-of-the-art results on WMT24 test data. In this work, we scrutinise this strategy's effectiveness. Empirically, we find no clear evidence that performance gains stem from explicitly decomposing the translation process via CoT, at least for the models on test; and we show prompting LLMs to 'translate again' and self-refine yields even better results than human-like step-by-step prompting. While the decomposition influences translation behaviour, faithfulness to the decomposition has both positive and negative effects on translation. Our analysis therefore suggests a divergence between the optimal translation strategies for humans and LLMs.

Patrícia Schmidtová, Niyati Bafna, Seth Aycock et al.

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved top results in recent machine translation evaluations, but they are also known to be sensitive to errors and perturbations in their prompts. We systematically evaluate how both humanly plausible and synthetic errors in user prompts affect LLMs' performance on two related tasks: Machine translation and machine translation evaluation. We provide both a quantitative analysis and qualitative insights into how the models respond to increasing noise in the user prompt. The prompt quality strongly affects the translation performance: With many errors, even a good prompt can underperform a minimal or poor prompt without errors. However, different noise types impact translation quality differently, with character-level and combined noisers degrading performance more than phrasal perturbations. Qualitative analysis reveals that lower prompt quality largely leads to poorer instruction following, rather than directly affecting translation quality itself. Further, LLMs can still translate in scenarios with overwhelming random noise that would make the prompt illegible to humans.