Renee Shelby

Jessica Huynh, Alfredo Gomez, Athiya Deviyani et al.

Autoraters, also referred to as LLM-as-judges, are increasingly used for evaluation and automated content moderation. However, there is limited statistical analysis of how modifications in a rubric presented to both humans and autoraters affect their score agreement. Rubrics that ask for an overall or \emph{holistic} judgment - for example, rating the ``quality'' of an essay - may be inconsistently interpreted due to the complexity or subjectivity of the criteria. Conversely, rubrics can ask for \emph{analytic} judgments, which decompose assessment criteria - for example, ``quality'' into ``fluency'' and ``organization''. While these rubrics can be edited to improve the individual accuracy of both human and automated scoring, this approach may result in disagreement between the two scores, or with the associated holistic judgment. Designing and deploying reliable autoraters requires understanding not just the relationship between human and autorater annotations but how that relationship changes as holistic or analytic judgments are elicited. The results indicate that rubric edits providing representative examples and additional context, and reducing positional bias in the rubric increased human-autorater agreement, while higher rubric complexity and conservative aggregation methods tended to decrease it. The findings from the automatic essay scoring and instruction-following evaluation domains suggest that practitioners should carefully analyze domain- and rubric-specific performance to move towards higher human-autorater agreement.

Sarah Meiklejohn, Sunny Consolvo, Patrick Gage Kelley et al.

This paper introduces HelpBench, a benchmark for assessing whether LLMs are capable of providing accurate help in response to questions about digital privacy, safety, and security. We curated 450 questions representing authentic user situations and developed rubrics for each question to evaluate the factual accuracy and tone of a response. Example questions touch on how to regain access to lost or suspended accounts, how to balance the trade-offs of hardware security keys versus other forms of two-factor authentication, whether a suspicious email is likely a scam, or whether an abuser might be able to track an individual based on their device peripherals. We then developed and applied an auto-rater to evaluate responses from 18 state-of-the-art LLMs. Our results indicate that while models provide high-quality advice (with scores of 82% on average), one in ten responses from models scores less than 65%, reflecting inaccurate and even harmful advice. Addressing these failures is critical for models to serve as trustworthy sources of assistance for digital privacy, safety, and security needs.