Nick McKenna

Bhuvanashree Murugadoss, Christian Poelitz, Ian Drosos et al. · microsoft-research

LLMs-as-a-judge is a recently popularized method which replaces human judgements in task evaluation (Zheng et al. 2024) with automatic evaluation using LLMs. Due to widespread use of RLHF (Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback), state-of-the-art LLMs like GPT4 and Llama3 are expected to have strong alignment with human preferences when prompted for a quality judgement, such as the coherence of a text. While this seems beneficial, it is not clear whether the assessments by an LLM-as-a-judge constitute only an evaluation based on the instructions in the prompts, or reflect its preference for high-quality data similar to its fine-tune data. To investigate how much influence prompting the LLMs-as-a-judge has on the alignment of AI judgements to human judgements, we analyze prompts with increasing levels of instructions about the target quality of an evaluation, for several LLMs-as-a-judge. Further, we compare to a prompt-free method using model perplexity as a quality measure instead. We aggregate a taxonomy of quality criteria commonly used across state-of-the-art evaluations with LLMs and provide this as a rigorous benchmark of models as judges. Overall, we show that the LLMs-as-a-judge benefit only little from highly detailed instructions in prompts and that perplexity can sometimes align better with human judgements than prompting, especially on textual quality.

Nick McKenna, Tianyi Li, Mark Johnson et al.

The diversity and Zipfian frequency distribution of natural language predicates in corpora leads to sparsity in Entailment Graphs (EGs) built by Open Relation Extraction (ORE). EGs are computationally efficient and explainable models of natural language inference, but as symbolic models, they fail if a novel premise or hypothesis vertex is missing at test-time. We present theory and methodology for overcoming such sparsity in symbolic models. First, we introduce a theory of optimal smoothing of EGs by constructing transitive chains. We then demonstrate an efficient, open-domain, and unsupervised smoothing method using an off-the-shelf Language Model to find approximations of missing premise predicates. This improves recall by 25.1 and 16.3 percentage points on two difficult directional entailment datasets, while raising average precision and maintaining model explainability. Further, in a QA task we show that EG smoothing is most useful for answering questions with lesser supporting text, where missing premise predicates are more costly. Finally, controlled experiments with WordNet confirm our theory and show that hypothesis smoothing is difficult, but possible in principle.

Nick McKenna, Tianyi Li, Liang Cheng et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are claimed to be capable of Natural Language Inference (NLI), necessary for applied tasks like question answering and summarization. We present a series of behavioral studies on several LLM families (LLaMA, GPT-3.5, and PaLM) which probe their behavior using controlled experiments. We establish two biases originating from pretraining which predict much of their behavior, and show that these are major sources of hallucination in generative LLMs. First, memorization at the level of sentences: we show that, regardless of the premise, models falsely label NLI test samples as entailing when the hypothesis is attested in training data, and that entities are used as ``indices'' to access the memorized data. Second, statistical patterns of usage learned at the level of corpora: we further show a similar effect when the premise predicate is less frequent than that of the hypothesis in the training data, a bias following from previous studies. We demonstrate that LLMs perform significantly worse on NLI test samples which do not conform to these biases than those which do, and we offer these as valuable controls for future LLM evaluation.

Nick McKenna, Liane Guillou, Mohammad Javad Hosseini et al.

Drawing inferences between open-domain natural language predicates is a necessity for true language understanding. There has been much progress in unsupervised learning of entailment graphs for this purpose. We make three contributions: (1) we reinterpret the Distributional Inclusion Hypothesis to model entailment between predicates of different valencies, like DEFEAT(Biden, Trump) entails WIN(Biden); (2) we actualize this theory by learning unsupervised Multivalent Entailment Graphs of open-domain predicates; and (3) we demonstrate the capabilities of these graphs on a novel question answering task. We show that directional entailment is more helpful for inference than bidirectional similarity on questions of fine-grained semantics. We also show that drawing on evidence across valencies answers more questions than by using only the same valency evidence.