As a relative quality comparison of model responses, human and Large Language Model (LLM) preferences serve as common alignment goals in model fine-tuning and criteria in evaluation. Yet, these preferences merely reflect broad tendencies, resulting in less explainable and controllable models with potential safety risks. In this work, we dissect the preferences of human and 32 different LLMs to understand their quantitative composition, using annotations from real-world user-model conversations for a fine-grained, scenario-wise analysis. We find that humans are less sensitive to errors, favor responses that support their stances, and show clear dislike when models admit their limits. On the contrary, advanced LLMs like GPT-4-Turbo emphasize correctness, clarity, and harmlessness more. Additionally, LLMs of similar sizes tend to exhibit similar preferences, regardless of their training methods, and fine-tuning for alignment does not significantly alter the preferences of pretrained-only LLMs. Finally, we show that preference-based evaluation can be intentionally manipulated. In both training-free and training-based settings, aligning a model with the preferences of judges boosts scores, while injecting the least preferred properties lowers them. This results in notable score shifts: up to 0.59 on MT-Bench (1-10 scale) and 31.94 on AlpacaEval 2.0 (0-100 scale), highlighting the significant impact of this strategic adaptation. We have made all resources of this project publicly available.

Despite remarkable advancements in emulating human-like behavior through Large Language Models (LLMs), current textual simulations do not adequately address the notion of time. To this end, we introduce TimeArena, a novel textual simulated environment that incorporates complex temporal dynamics and constraints that better reflect real-life planning scenarios. In TimeArena, agents are asked to complete multiple tasks as soon as possible, allowing for parallel processing to save time. We implement the dependency between actions, the time duration for each action, and the occupancy of the agent and the objects in the environment. TimeArena grounds to 30 real-world tasks in cooking, household activity, and laboratory work. We conduct extensive experiments with various LLMs using TimeArena. Our findings reveal that even the most powerful models, e.g., GPT-4, still lag behind humans in effective multitasking, underscoring the need for enhanced temporal awareness in the development of language agents.

Multi-Modal Knowledge Graphs (MMKGs) have proven valuable for various downstream tasks. However, scaling them up is challenging because building large-scale MMKGs often introduces mismatched images (i.e., noise). Most entities in KGs belong to the long tail, meaning there are few images of them available online. This scarcity makes it difficult to determine whether a found image matches the entity. To address this, we draw on the Triangle of Reference Theory and suggest enhancing vision-language models with concept guidance. Specifically, we introduce COG, a two-stage framework with COncept-Guided vision-language models. The framework comprises a Concept Integration module, which effectively identifies image-text pairs of long-tailed entities, and an Evidence Fusion module, which offers explainability and enables human verification. To demonstrate the effectiveness of COG, we create a dataset of 25k image-text pairs of long-tailed entities. Our comprehensive experiments show that COG not only improves the accuracy of recognizing long-tailed image-text pairs compared to baselines but also offers flexibility and explainability.

Detecting evidence within the context is a key step in the process of reasoning task. Evaluating and enhancing the capabilities of LLMs in evidence detection will strengthen context-based reasoning performance. This paper proposes a benchmark called DetectBench for verifying the ability to detect and piece together implicit evidence within a long context. DetectBench contains 3,928 multiple-choice questions, with an average of 994 tokens per question. Each question contains an average of 4.55 pieces of implicit evidence, and solving the problem typically requires 7.62 logical jumps to find the correct answer. To enhance the performance of LLMs in evidence detection, this paper proposes Detective Reasoning Prompt and Finetune. Experiments demonstrate that the existing LLMs’ abilities to detect evidence in long contexts are far inferior to humans. However, the Detective Reasoning Prompt effectively enhances the capability of powerful LLMs in evidence detection, while the Finetuning method shows significant effects in enhancing the performance of weaker LLMs. Moreover, when the abilities of LLMs in evidence detection are improved, their final reasoning performance is also enhanced accordingly.

Similes play an imperative role in creative writing such as story and dialogue generation. Proper evaluation metrics are like a beacon guiding the research of simile generation (SG). However, it remains under-explored as to what criteria should be considered, how to quantify each criterion into metrics, and whether the metrics are effective for comprehensive, efficient, and reliable SG evaluation. To address the issues, we establish HAUSER, a holistic and automatic evaluation system for the SG task, which consists of five criteria from three perspectives and automatic metrics for each criterion. Through extensive experiments, we verify that our metrics are significantly more correlated with human ratings from each perspective compared with prior automatic metrics. Resources of HAUSER are publicly available at https://github.com/Abbey4799/HAUSER.