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.

The reasoning abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) are becoming a central focus of study in NLP. In this paper, we consider the case of syllogistic reasoning, an area of deductive reasoning studied extensively in logic and cognitive psychology. Previous research has shown that pre-trained LLMs exhibit reasoning biases, such as content effects, avoid answering that no conclusion follows, align with human difficulties, and struggle with multi-step reasoning. We contribute to this research line by systematically investigating the effects of chain-of-thought reasoning, in-context learning (ICL), and supervised fine-tuning (SFT) on syllogistic reasoning, considering syllogisms with conclusions that support or violate world knowledge and with multiple premises. Crucially, we go beyond the standard focus on accuracy, with an in-depth analysis of the conclusions generated by the models. Our results suggest that the behavior of pre-trained LLMs can be explained by heuristics studied in cognitive science and that both ICL and SFT improve model performance on valid inferences, although only the latter can mitigate most reasoning biases while being consistent.

Large Language Models, and ChatGPT in particular, have recently grabbed the attention of the community and the media. Having reached high language proficiency, attention has been shifting toward its reasoning capabilities. In this paper, our main aim is to evaluate ChatGPT’s question generation in a task where language production should be driven by an implicit reasoning process. To this end, we employ the 20-Questions game, traditionally used within the Cognitive Science community to inspect the information seeking-strategy’s development. This task requires a series of interconnected skills: asking informative questions, stepwise updating the hypothesis space, and stopping asking questions when enough information has been collected. We build hierarchical hypothesis spaces, exploiting feature norms collected from humans vs. ChatGPT itself, and we inspect the efficiency and informativeness of ChatGPT’s strategy. Our results show that ChatGPT’s performance gets closer to an optimal agent only when prompted to explicitly list the updated space stepwise.