Fabrício Góes

Piotr Sawicki, Marek Grześ, Dan Brown et al.

This study adapts the Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT) for Large Language Models (LLMs), introducing a novel methodology for poetry evaluation. Using a 90-poem dataset with a ground truth based on publication venue, we demonstrate that this approach allows LLMs to significantly surpass the performance of non-expert human judges. Our method, which leverages forced-choice ranking within small, randomized batches, enabled Claude-3-Opus to achieve a Spearman's Rank Correlation of 0.87 with the ground truth, dramatically outperforming the best human non-expert evaluation (SRC = 0.38). The LLM assessments also exhibited high inter-rater reliability, underscoring the methodology's robustness. These findings establish that LLMs, when guided by a comparative framework, can be effective and reliable tools for assessing poetry, paving the way for their broader application in other creative domains.

Abdullah Al Rabeyah, Fabrício Góes, Marco Volpe et al.

This paper investigates whether large language models (LLMs) show agreement in assessing creativity in responses to the Alternative Uses Test (AUT). While LLMs are increasingly used to evaluate creative content, previous studies have primarily focused on a single model assessing responses generated by the same model or humans. This paper explores whether LLMs can impartially and accurately evaluate creativity in outputs generated by both themselves and other models. Using an oracle benchmark set of AUT responses, categorized by creativity level (common, creative, and highly creative), we experiment with four state-of-the-art LLMs evaluating these outputs. We test both scoring and ranking methods and employ two evaluation settings (comprehensive and segmented) to examine if LLMs agree on the creativity evaluation of alternative uses. Results reveal high inter-model agreement, with Spearman correlations averaging above 0.7 across models and reaching over 0.77 with respect to the oracle, indicating a high level of agreement and validating the reliability of LLMs in creativity assessment of alternative uses. Notably, models do not favour their own responses, instead they provide similar creativity assessment scores or rankings for alternative uses generated by other models. These findings suggest that LLMs exhibit impartiality and high alignment in creativity evaluation, offering promising implications for their use in automated creativity assessment.

Jacob Watson, Fabrício Góes, Marco Volpe et al.

This paper investigates the suitability of frontier Large Language Models (LLMs) for Q&A interactions in science centres, with the aim of boosting visitor engagement while maintaining factual accuracy. Using a dataset of questions collected from the National Space Centre in Leicester (UK), we evaluated responses generated by three leading models: OpenAI's GPT-4, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, and Google Gemini 1.5. Each model was prompted for both standard and creative responses tailored to an 8-year-old audience, and these responses were assessed by space science experts based on accuracy, engagement, clarity, novelty, and deviation from expected answers. The results revealed a trade-off between creativity and accuracy, with Claude outperforming GPT and Gemini in both maintaining clarity and engaging young audiences, even when asked to generate more creative responses. Nonetheless, experts observed that higher novelty was generally associated with reduced factual reliability across all models. This study highlights the potential of LLMs in educational settings, emphasizing the need for careful prompt engineering to balance engagement with scientific rigor.