Alina Hyk

Alina Hyk, Sandhya Saisubramanian

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as reasoning modules in many applications. While they are efficient in certain tasks, LLMs often struggle to produce human-aligned solutions. Human-aligned decision making requires accounting for both explicitly stated goals and latent user preferences that shape how ambiguous situations should be resolved. Existing approaches to incorporating such preferences either rely on extensive and repeated user interactions or fail to generalize latent preferences across tasks and contexts, limiting their practical applicability. We consider a setting in which an LLM is used for high-level reasoning and is responsible for inferring latent user preferences from limited interactions, which guides downstream decision making. We introduce CLIPR (Conversational Learning for Inferring Preferences and Reasoning), a framework that learns actionable, transferable natural language rules that represent latent user preferences from minimal conversational input. These rules are iteratively refined through adaptive feedback and applied to both in-distribution and out-of-distribution ambiguous tasks across multiple environments. Evaluations on three datasets and a user study show that CLIPR consistently outperforms existing methods in improving alignment and reducing inference costs.

Alina Hyk, Kiera McCormick, Mian Zhong et al.

There is growing interest in leveraging LLMs to aid in astronomy and other scientific research, but benchmarks for LLM evaluation in general have not kept pace with the increasingly diverse ways that real people evaluate and use these models. In this study, we seek to improve evaluation procedures by building an understanding of how users evaluate LLMs. We focus on a particular use case: an LLM-powered retrieval-augmented generation bot for engaging with astronomical literature, which we deployed via Slack. Our inductive coding of 368 queries to the bot over four weeks and our follow-up interviews with 11 astronomers reveal how humans evaluated this system, including the types of questions asked and the criteria for judging responses. We synthesize our findings into concrete recommendations for building better benchmarks, which we then employ in constructing a sample benchmark for evaluating LLMs for astronomy. Overall, our work offers ways to improve LLM evaluation and ultimately usability, particularly for use in scientific research.