There is an increasing trend towards evaluating NLP models with LLMs instead of human judgments, raising questions about the validity of these evaluations, as well as their reproducibility in the case of proprietary models. We provide JUDGE-BENCH, an extensible collection of 20 NLP datasets with human annotations covering a broad range of evaluated properties and types of data, and comprehensively evaluate 11 current LLMs, covering both open-weight and proprietary models, for their ability to replicate the annotations. Our evaluations show substantial variance across models and datasets. Models are reliable evaluators on some tasks, but overall display substantial variability depending on the property being evaluated, the expertise level of the human judges, and whether the language is human or model-generated. We conclude that LLMs should be carefully validated against human judgments before being used as evaluators.

Language and Vision-Language Models exhibit impressive language capabilities akin to human reasoning. However, unlike humans who acquire language through embodied, interactive experiences, these models learn from static datasets without real-world interaction. This difference raises questions about how they conceptualize abstract notions and whether their reasoning aligns with human cognition. We investigate spatial conceptualizations of LLMs and VLMs by conducting analogy prompting studies with LLMs, VLMs, and human participants. We assess their ability to generate and interpret analogies for spatial concepts. We quantitatively compare the analogies produced by each group, examining the impact of multimodal inputs and reasoning mechanisms. Our findings indicate that generative models can produce and interpret analogies but differ significantly from human reasoning in their abstraction of spatial concepts - variability influenced by input modality, model size, and prompting methods, with analogy-based prompts not consistently enhancing alignment. Contributions include a methodology for probing generative models through analogies; a comparative analysis of analogical reasoning among models, and humans; and insights into the effect of multimodal inputs on reasoning.

A common assumption in Computational Linguistics is that text representations learnt by multimodal models are richer and more human-like than those by language-only models, as they are grounded in images or audio—similar to how human language is grounded in real-world experiences. However, empirical studies checking whether this is true are largely lacking. We address this gap by comparing word representations from contrastive multimodal models vs. language-only ones in the extent to which they capture experiential information—as defined by an existing norm-based ‘experiential model’—and align with human fMRI responses. Our results indicate that, surprisingly, language-only models are superior to multimodal ones in both respects. Additionally, they learn more unique brain-relevant semantic information beyond that shared with the experiential model. Overall, our study highlights the need to develop computational models that better integrate the complementary semantic information provided by multimodal data sources.

Image-based advertisements are complex multimodal stimuli that often contain unusual visual elements and figurative language. Previous research on automatic ad understanding has reported impressive zero-shot accuracy of contrastive vision-and-language models (VLMs) on an ad-explanation retrieval task. Here, we examine the original task setup and show that contrastive VLMs can solve it by exploiting grounding heuristics. To control for this confound, we introduce TRADE, a new evaluation test set with adversarial grounded explanations. While these explanations look implausible to humans, we show that they “fool” four different contrastive VLMs. Our findings highlight the need for an improved operationalisation of automatic ad understanding that truly evaluates VLMs’ multimodal reasoning abilities. We make our code and TRADE available at https://github.com/dmg-illc/trade.