Jong Inn Park

Ryan Koo, Minhwa Lee, Vipul Raheja et al. · deepmind

Large Language Models are cognitively biased judges. Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently been shown to be effective as automatic evaluators with simple prompting and in-context learning. In this work, we assemble 15 LLMs of four different size ranges and evaluate their output responses by preference ranking from the other LLMs as evaluators, such as System Star is better than System Square. We then evaluate the quality of ranking outputs introducing the Cognitive Bias Benchmark for LLMs as Evaluators (CoBBLEr), a benchmark to measure six different cognitive biases in LLM evaluation outputs, such as the Egocentric bias where a model prefers to rank its own outputs highly in evaluation. We find that LLMs are biased text quality evaluators, exhibiting strong indications on our bias benchmark (average of 40% of comparisons across all models) within each of their evaluations that question their robustness as evaluators. Furthermore, we examine the correlation between human and machine preferences and calculate the average Rank-Biased Overlap (RBO) score to be 49.6%, indicating that machine preferences are misaligned with humans. According to our findings, LLMs may still be unable to be utilized for automatic annotation aligned with human preferences. Our project page is at: https://minnesotanlp.github.io/cobbler.

Ritik Sachin Parkar, Jaehyung Kim, Jong Inn Park et al.

Instruction tuning benefits from large and diverse datasets; however, creating such datasets involves a high cost of human labeling. While synthetic datasets generated by large language models (LLMs) have partly solved this issue, they often contain low-quality data. One effective solution is selectively annotating unlabelled instructions, especially given the relative ease of acquiring unlabeled instructions or texts from various sources. However, how to select unlabelled instructions is not well-explored, especially in the context of LLMs. Therefore, we introduce SelectLLM, an alternative framework that leverages the capabilities of LLMs to select unlabeled instructions more effectively. Specifically, SelectLLM consists of two key steps: Coreset-based clustering of unlabelled instructions for enlarging diversity and prompting of LLM to identify the most beneficial instructions within each cluster. We evaluate SelectLLM on AlpacaEval2 and MT-Bench, demonstrating its ability to outperform state-of-the-art methods like Alpagasus. In addition, we compare the performance and compatibility of SelectLLM with various LLMs, such as ChatGPT, LLaMA-3.1-70B, and Gemma-2-27b. SelectLLM's adaptability and robustness are further evidenced by its ability to maintain high performance across both human and synthetic datasets. All code and data are publicly available (https://github.com/minnesotanlp/select-llm).

Jong Inn Park, Maanas Taneja, Qianwen Wang et al.

Generating engaging, accurate short-form videos from scientific papers is challenging due to content complexity and the gap between expert authors and readers. Existing end-to-end methods often suffer from factual inaccuracies and visual artifacts, limiting their utility for scientific dissemination. To address these issues, we propose SciTalk, a novel multi-LLM agentic framework, grounding videos in various sources, such as text, figures, visual styles, and avatars. Inspired by content creators' workflows, SciTalk uses specialized agents for content summarization, visual scene planning, and text and layout editing, and incorporates an iterative feedback mechanism where video agents simulate user roles to give feedback on generated videos from previous iterations and refine generation prompts. Experimental evaluations show that SciTalk outperforms simple prompting methods in generating scientifically accurate and engaging content over the refined loop of video generation. Although preliminary results are still not yet matching human creators' quality, our framework provides valuable insights into the challenges and benefits of feedback-driven video generation. Our code, data, and generated videos will be publicly available.

Karin de Langis, Jong Inn Park, Bin Hu et al.

Emergent cognitive abilities in large language models (LLMs) have been widely observed, but their nature and underlying mechanisms remain poorly understood. A growing body of research draws on cognitive science to investigate LLM cognition, but standard methodologies and experimen-tal pipelines have not yet been established. To address this gap we develop CognitivEval, a framework for systematically evaluating the artificial cognitive capabilities of LLMs, with a particular emphasis on robustness in response collection. The key features of CognitivEval include: (i) automatic prompt permutations, and (ii) testing that gathers both generations and model probability estimates. Our experiments demonstrate that these features lead to more robust experimental outcomes. Using CognitivEval, we replicate five classic experiments in cognitive science, illustrating the framework's generalizability across various experimental tasks and obtaining a cognitive profile of several state of the art LLMs. CognitivEval will be released publicly to foster broader collaboration within the cognitive science community.

Karin de Langis, Jong Inn Park, Andreas Schramm et al.

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit increasingly sophisticated linguistic capabilities, yet the extent to which these behaviors reflect human-like cognition versus advanced pattern recognition remains an open question. In this study, we investigate how LLMs process the temporal meaning of linguistic aspect in narratives that were previously used in human studies. Using an Expert-in-the-Loop probing pipeline, we conduct a series of targeted experiments to assess whether LLMs construct semantic representations and pragmatic inferences in a human-like manner. Our findings show that LLMs over-rely on prototypicality, produce inconsistent aspectual judgments, and struggle with causal reasoning derived from aspect, raising concerns about their ability to fully comprehend narratives. These results suggest that LLMs process aspect fundamentally differently from humans and lack robust narrative understanding. Beyond these empirical findings, we develop a standardized experimental framework for the reliable assessment of LLMs' cognitive and linguistic capabilities.