The “LLM-as-an-annotator” and “LLM-as-a-judge” paradigms employ Large Language Models (LLMs) as annotators, judges, and evaluators in tasks traditionally performed by humans. LLM annotations are widely used, not only in NLP research but also in fields like medicine, psychology, and social science. Despite their role in shaping study results and insights, there is no standard or rigorous procedure to determine whether LLMs can replace human annotators. In this paper, we propose a novel statistical procedure, the Alternative Annotator Test (alt-test), that requires only a modest subset of annotated examples to justify using LLM annotations. Additionally, we introduce a versatile and interpretable measure for comparing LLM annotators and judges. To demonstrate our procedure, we curated a diverse collection of ten datasets, consisting of language and vision-language tasks, and conducted experiments with six LLMs and four prompting techniques. Our results show that LLMs can sometimes replace humans with closed-source LLMs (such as GPT-4o), outperforming the open-source LLMs we examine, and that prompting techniques yield judges of varying quality. We hope this study encourages more rigorous and reliable practices.

Preference mechanisms, such as human preference, LLM-as-a-Judge (LaaJ), and reward models, are central to aligning and evaluating large language models (LLMs). Yet, the underlying concepts that drive these preferences remain poorly understood. In this work, we propose a fully automated method for generating local and global concept-based explanations of preferences across multiple domains. Our method utilizes an LLM to identify concepts (rubrics) that distinguish between chosen and rejected responses, and to represent them with concept-based vectors. To model the relationships between concepts and preferences, we propose a white-box Hierarchical Multi-Domain Regression model that captures both domain-general and domain-specific effects. To evaluate our method, we curate a dataset spanning eight diverse domains and explain twelve mechanisms. Our method achieves strong preference prediction performance, outperforming baselines while also being explainable. Additionally, we assess explanations in two application-driven settings. First, guiding LLM outputs with concepts from LaaJ explanations yields responses that those judges consistently prefer. Second, prompting LaaJs with concepts explaining humans improves their preference predictions. Together, our work establishes a new paradigm for explainability in the era of LLMs.

NLP benchmarks rely on standardized datasets for training and evaluating models and are crucial for advancing the field. Traditionally, expert annotations ensure high-quality labels; however, the cost of expert annotation does not scale well with the growing demand for larger datasets required by modern models. While crowd-sourcing provides a more scalable solution, it often comes at the expense of annotation precision and consistency. Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) offer new opportunities to enhance the annotation process, particularly for detecting label errors in existing datasets. In this work, we consider the recent approach of LLM-as-a-judge, leveraging an ensemble of LLMs to flag potentially mislabeled examples. We conduct a case study on four factual consistency datasets from the TRUE benchmark, spanning diverse NLP tasks, and on SummEval, which uses Likert-scale ratings of summary quality across multiple dimensions. We empirically analyze the labeling quality of existing datasets and compare expert, crowd-sourced, and LLM-based annotations in terms of the agreement, label quality, and efficiency, demonstrating the strengths and limitations of each annotation method. Our findings reveal a substantial number of label errors, which, when corrected, induce a significant upward shift in reported model performance. This suggests that many of the LLMs’ so-called mistakes are due to label errors rather than genuine model failures. Additionally, we discuss the implications of mislabeled data and propose methods to mitigate them in training to improve performance.

Recent advancements in NLP systems, particularly with the introduction of LLMs, have led to widespread adoption of these systems by a broad spectrum of users across various domains, impacting decision-making, the job market, society, and scientific research. This surge in usage has led to an explosion in NLP model interpretability and analysis research, accompanied by numerous technical surveys. Yet, these surveys often overlook the needs and perspectives of explanation stakeholders. In this paper, we address three fundamental questions: Why do we need interpretability, what are we interpreting, and how? By exploring these questions, we examine existing interpretability paradigms, their properties, and their relevance to different stakeholders. We further explore the practical implications of these paradigms by analyzing trends from the past decade across multiple research fields. To this end, we retrieved thousands of papers and employed an LLM to characterize them. Our analysis reveals significant disparities between NLP developers and non-developer users, as well as between research fields, underscoring the diverse needs of stakeholders. For example, explanations of internal model components are rarely used outside the NLP field. We hope this paper informs the future design, development, and application of methods that align with the objectives and requirements of various stakeholders.

Existing research on Domain Robustness (DR) suffers from disparate setups, limited task variety, and scarce research on recent capabilities such as in-context learning. Furthermore, the common practice of measuring DR might not be fully accurate. Current research focuses on challenge sets and relies solely on the Source Drop (SD): Using the source in-domain performance as a reference point for degradation. However, we argue that the Target Drop (TD), which measures degradation from the target in-domain performance, should be used as a complementary point of view. To address these issues, we first curated a DR benchmark comprised of 7 diverse NLP tasks, which enabled us to measure both the SD and the TD. We then conducted a comprehensive large-scale DR study involving over 14,000 domain shifts across 21 fine-tuned models and few-shot LLMs. We found that both model types suffer from drops upon domain shifts. While fine-tuned models excel in-domain, few-shot LLMs often surpass them cross-domain, showing better robustness. In addition, we found that a large SD can often be explained by shifting to a harder domain rather than by a genuine DR challenge, and this highlights the importance of TD as a complementary metric. We hope our study will shed light on the current DR state of NLP models and promote improved evaluation practices toward more robust models.

Queer youth face increased mental health risks, such as depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. Hindered by negative stigma, they often avoid seeking help and rely on online resources, which may provide incompatible information. Although access to a supportive environment and reliable information is invaluable, many queer youth worldwide have no access to such support. However, this could soon change due to the rapid adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT. This paper aims to comprehensively explore the potential of LLMs to revolutionize emotional support for queers. To this end, we conduct a qualitative and quantitative analysis of LLM’s interactions with queer-related content. To evaluate response quality, we develop a novel ten-question scale that is inspired by psychological standards and expert input. We apply this scale to score several LLMs and human comments to posts where queer youth seek advice and share experiences. We find that LLM responses are supportive and inclusive, outscoring humans. However, they tend to be generic, not empathetic enough, and lack personalization, resulting in nonreliable and potentially harmful advice. We discuss these challenges, demonstrate that a dedicated prompt can improve the performance, and propose a blueprint of an LLM-supporter that actively (but sensitively) seeks user context to provide personalized, empathetic, and reliable responses. Our annotated dataset is available for further research.*https://github.com/nitaytech/LGBTeenDataset

Modern Natural Language Generation (NLG) models come with massive computational and storage requirements. In this work, we study the potential of compressing them, which is crucial for real-world applications serving millions of users. We focus on Knowledge Distillation (KD) techniques, in which a small student model learns to imitate a large teacher model, allowing to transfer knowledge from the teacher to the student. In contrast to much of the previous work, our goal is to optimize the model for a specific NLG task and a specific dataset. Typically in real-world applications, in addition to labeled data there is abundant unlabeled task-specific data, which is crucial for attaining high compression rates via KD. In this work, we conduct a systematic study of task-specific KD techniques for various NLG tasks under realistic assumptions. We discuss the special characteristics of NLG distillation and particularly the exposure bias problem. Following, we derive a family of Pseudo-Target (PT) augmentation methods, substantially extending prior work on sequence-level KD. We propose the Joint-Teaching method, which applies word-level KD to multiple PTs generated by both the teacher and the student. Finally, we validate our findings in an extreme setup with no labeled examples using GPT-4 as the teacher. Our study provides practical model design observations and demonstrates the effectiveness of PT training for task-specific KD in NLG.

Natural language processing (NLP) algorithms have become very successful, but they still struggle when applied to out-of-distribution examples. In this paper we propose a controllable generation approach in order to deal with this domain adaptation (DA) challenge. Given an input text example, our DoCoGen algorithm generates a domain-counterfactual textual example (D-con) - that is similar to the original in all aspects, including the task label, but its domain is changed to a desired one. Importantly, DoCoGen is trained using only unlabeled examples from multiple domains - no NLP task labels or parallel pairs of textual examples and their domain-counterfactuals are required. We show that DoCoGen can generate coherent counterfactuals consisting of multiple sentences. We use the D-cons generated by DoCoGen to augment a sentiment classifier and a multi-label intent classifier in 20 and 78 DA setups, respectively, where source-domain labeled data is scarce. Our model outperforms strong baselines and improves the accuracy of a state-of-the-art unsupervised DA algorithm.