Showing 1–12 of 12 results for author: Boyd-Graber, J L

Semantically-Aware Rewards for Open-Ended R1 Training in Free-Form Generation

Authors: Zongxia Li, Yapei Chang, Yuhang Zhou, Xiyang Wu, Zichao Liang, Yoo Yeon Sung, Jordan Lee Boyd-Graber

Abstract: Evaluating open-ended long-form generation is challenging because it is hard to define what clearly separates good from bad outputs. Existing methods often miss key aspects like coherence, style, or relevance, or are biased by pretraining data, making open-ended long-form evaluation an underexplored problem. To address this gap, we propose PrefBERT, a scoring model for evaluating open-ended long-f… ▽ More Evaluating open-ended long-form generation is challenging because it is hard to define what clearly separates good from bad outputs. Existing methods often miss key aspects like coherence, style, or relevance, or are biased by pretraining data, making open-ended long-form evaluation an underexplored problem. To address this gap, we propose PrefBERT, a scoring model for evaluating open-ended long-form generation in GRPO and guiding its training with distinct rewards for good and bad outputs. Trained on two response evaluation datasets with diverse long-form styles and Likert-rated quality, PrefBERT effectively supports GRPO by offering better semantic reward feedback than traditional metrics ROUGE-L and BERTScore do. Through comprehensive evaluations, including LLM-as-a-judge, human ratings, and qualitative analysis, we show that PrefBERT, trained on multi-sentence and paragraph-length responses, remains reliable across varied long passages and aligns well with the verifiable rewards GRPO needs. Human evaluations confirm that using PrefBERT as the reward signal to train policy models yields responses better aligned with human preferences than those trained with traditional metrics. Our code is available at https://github.com/zli12321/long_form_rl. △ Less

Submitted 17 June, 2025; originally announced June 2025.

VideoHallu: Evaluating and Mitigating Multi-modal Hallucinations on Synthetic Video Understanding

Authors: Zongxia Li, Xiyang Wu, Guangyao Shi, Yubin Qin, Hongyang Du, Tianyi Zhou, Dinesh Manocha, Jordan Lee Boyd-Graber

Abstract: Synthetic video generation has gained significant attention for its realism and broad applications, but remains prone to violations of common sense and physical laws. This highlights the need for reliable abnormality detectors that understand such principles and are robust to hallucinations. To address this, we introduce VideoHallu, a benchmark of over 3,000 video QA pairs built from synthetic vid… ▽ More Synthetic video generation has gained significant attention for its realism and broad applications, but remains prone to violations of common sense and physical laws. This highlights the need for reliable abnormality detectors that understand such principles and are robust to hallucinations. To address this, we introduce VideoHallu, a benchmark of over 3,000 video QA pairs built from synthetic videos generated by models like Veo2, Sora, and Kling, paired with expert-crafted counterintuitive QA to evaluate the critical thinking abilities of Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) on abnormalities that are perceptually obvious to humans but often hallucinated due to language priors. VideoHallu evaluates MLLMs' abnormality detection abilities with examples across alignment, consistency, commonsense, and physics. We benchmark SOTA MLLMs, including GPT-4o, Gemini-2.5-Pro, Qwen2.5-VL, Video-R1, and VideoChat-R1. We observe that these models perform well on many real-world benchmarks like MVBench and MovieChat, but still struggle with basic physics-based and commonsense reasoning in synthetic videos. We further show that post-training with Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), using curriculum learning on datasets combining video QA with counterintuitive commonsense and physics reasoning over real and synthetic videos, improves MLLMs' abnormality detection and critical thinking, demonstrating the value of targeted training for improving their understanding of commonsense and physical laws. Our code is available at https://github.com/zli12321/VideoHallu.git. △ Less

Submitted 18 June, 2025; v1 submitted 2 May, 2025; originally announced May 2025.

Large Language Models Are Effective Human Annotation Assistants, But Not Good Independent Annotators

Authors: Feng Gu, Zongxia Li, Carlos Rafael Colon, Benjamin Evans, Ishani Mondal, Jordan Lee Boyd-Graber

Abstract: Event annotation is important for identifying market changes, monitoring breaking news, and understanding sociological trends. Although expert annotators set the gold standards, human coding is expensive and inefficient. Unlike information extraction experiments that focus on single contexts, we evaluate a holistic workflow that removes irrelevant documents, merges documents about the same event,… ▽ More Event annotation is important for identifying market changes, monitoring breaking news, and understanding sociological trends. Although expert annotators set the gold standards, human coding is expensive and inefficient. Unlike information extraction experiments that focus on single contexts, we evaluate a holistic workflow that removes irrelevant documents, merges documents about the same event, and annotates the events. Although LLM-based automated annotations are better than traditional TF-IDF-based methods or Event Set Curation, they are still not reliable annotators compared to human experts. However, adding LLMs to assist experts for Event Set Curation can reduce the time and mental effort required for Variable Annotation. When using LLMs to extract event variables to assist expert annotators, they agree more with the extracted variables than fully automated LLMs for annotation. △ Less

Submitted 5 April, 2025; v1 submitted 9 March, 2025; originally announced March 2025.

Comments: 9 pages, 4 figures

GRACE: A Granular Benchmark for Evaluating Model Calibration against Human Calibration

Authors: Yoo Yeon Sung, Eve Fleisig, Yu Hou, Ishan Upadhyay, Jordan Lee Boyd-Graber

Abstract: Language models are often miscalibrated, leading to confidently incorrect answers. We introduce GRACE, a benchmark for language model calibration that incorporates comparison with human calibration. GRACE consists of question-answer pairs, in which each question contains a series of clues that gradually become easier, all leading to the same answer; models must answer correctly as early as possibl… ▽ More Language models are often miscalibrated, leading to confidently incorrect answers. We introduce GRACE, a benchmark for language model calibration that incorporates comparison with human calibration. GRACE consists of question-answer pairs, in which each question contains a series of clues that gradually become easier, all leading to the same answer; models must answer correctly as early as possible as the clues are revealed. This setting permits granular measurement of model calibration based on how early, accurately, and confidently a model answers. After collecting these questions, we host live human vs. model competitions to gather 1,749 data points on human and model teams' timing, accuracy, and confidence. We propose a metric, CalScore, that uses GRACE to analyze model calibration errors and identify types of model miscalibration that differ from human behavior. We find that although humans are less accurate than models, humans are generally better calibrated. Since state-of-the-art models struggle on GRACE, it effectively evaluates progress on improving model calibration. △ Less

Submitted 26 February, 2025; originally announced February 2025.

Which of These Best Describes Multiple Choice Evaluation with LLMs? A) Forced B) Flawed C) Fixable D) All of the Above

Authors: Nishant Balepur, Rachel Rudinger, Jordan Lee Boyd-Graber

Abstract: Multiple choice question answering (MCQA) is popular for LLM evaluation due to its simplicity and human-like testing, but we argue for its reform. We first reveal flaws in MCQA's format, as it struggles to: 1) test generation/subjectivity; 2) match LLM use cases; and 3) fully test knowledge. We instead advocate for generative formats based on human testing, where LLMs construct and explain answers… ▽ More Multiple choice question answering (MCQA) is popular for LLM evaluation due to its simplicity and human-like testing, but we argue for its reform. We first reveal flaws in MCQA's format, as it struggles to: 1) test generation/subjectivity; 2) match LLM use cases; and 3) fully test knowledge. We instead advocate for generative formats based on human testing, where LLMs construct and explain answers, better capturing user needs and knowledge while remaining easy to score. We then show even when MCQA is a useful format, its datasets suffer from: leakage; unanswerability; shortcuts; and saturation. In each issue, we give fixes from education, like rubrics to guide MCQ writing; scoring methods to bridle guessing; and Item Response Theory to build harder MCQs. Lastly, we discuss LLM errors in MCQA, robustness, biases, and unfaithful explanations, showing how our prior solutions better measure or address these issues. While we do not need to desert MCQA, we encourage more efforts in refining the task based on educational testing, advancing evaluations. △ Less

Submitted 31 May, 2025; v1 submitted 19 February, 2025; originally announced February 2025.

Comments: ACL 2025

Should I Trust You? Detecting Deception in Negotiations using Counterfactual RL

Authors: Wichayaporn Wongkamjan, Yanze Wang, Feng Gu, Denis Peskoff, Jonathan K. Kummerfeld, Jonathan May, Jordan Lee Boyd-Graber

Abstract: An increasingly common socio-technical problem is people being taken in by offers that sound ``too good to be true'', where persuasion and trust shape decision-making. This paper investigates how \abr{ai} can help detect these deceptive scenarios. We analyze how humans strategically deceive each other in \textit{Diplomacy}, a board game that requires both natural language communication and strateg… ▽ More An increasingly common socio-technical problem is people being taken in by offers that sound ``too good to be true'', where persuasion and trust shape decision-making. This paper investigates how \abr{ai} can help detect these deceptive scenarios. We analyze how humans strategically deceive each other in \textit{Diplomacy}, a board game that requires both natural language communication and strategic reasoning. This requires extracting logical forms of proposed agreements in player communications and computing the relative rewards of the proposal using agents' value functions. Combined with text-based features, this can improve our deception detection. Our method detects human deception with a high precision when compared to a Large Language Model approach that flags many true messages as deceptive. Future human-\abr{ai} interaction tools can build on our methods for deception detection by triggering \textit{friction} to give users a chance of interrogating suspicious proposals. △ Less

Submitted 5 June, 2025; v1 submitted 17 February, 2025; originally announced February 2025.

Comments: ACL Findings 2025

Whose Boat Does it Float? Improving Personalization in Preference Tuning via Inferred User Personas

Authors: Nishant Balepur, Vishakh Padmakumar, Fumeng Yang, Shi Feng, Rachel Rudinger, Jordan Lee Boyd-Graber

Abstract: LLMs are aligned to follow input instructions by learning which of two responses users prefer for a prompt. However, such preference data do not convey why users prefer responses that are chosen or rejected, so LLMs trained on these datasets cannot tailor responses to varied user needs. To surface these parameters of personalization, we apply abductive reasoning to preference data, inferring needs… ▽ More LLMs are aligned to follow input instructions by learning which of two responses users prefer for a prompt. However, such preference data do not convey why users prefer responses that are chosen or rejected, so LLMs trained on these datasets cannot tailor responses to varied user needs. To surface these parameters of personalization, we apply abductive reasoning to preference data, inferring needs and interests of users, i.e., personas, that may prefer either response. We test this idea in two steps: Persona Inference (PI), abductively inferring personas of users who prefer chosen or rejected outputs, and Persona Tailoring (PT), training models to tailor outputs to personas from PI. We show: 1) LLMs infer personas accurately explaining why different users may prefer both chosen or rejected outputs; 2) Training on preference data augmented with PI personas via PT boosts personalization and generalizes to supporting user-written personas; and 3) Rejected response personas form harder personalization evaluations, showing PT better aids users with uncommon preferences versus typical alignment methods. We argue for an abductive view of preferences for personalization, asking not only which response is better but when, why, and for whom. △ Less

Submitted 31 May, 2025; v1 submitted 20 January, 2025; originally announced January 2025.

Comments: ACL 2025

Is your benchmark truly adversarial? AdvScore: Evaluating Human-Grounded Adversarialness

Authors: Yoo Yeon Sung, Maharshi Gor, Eve Fleisig, Ishani Mondal, Jordan Lee Boyd-Graber

Abstract: Adversarial datasets should validate AI robustness by providing samples on which humans perform well, but models do not. However, as models evolve, datasets can become obsolete. Measuring whether a dataset remains adversarial is hindered by the lack of a standardized metric for measuring adversarialness. We propose AdvScore, a human-grounded evaluation metric that assesses a dataset's adversarialn… ▽ More Adversarial datasets should validate AI robustness by providing samples on which humans perform well, but models do not. However, as models evolve, datasets can become obsolete. Measuring whether a dataset remains adversarial is hindered by the lack of a standardized metric for measuring adversarialness. We propose AdvScore, a human-grounded evaluation metric that assesses a dataset's adversarialness by capturing models' and humans' varying abilities while also identifying poor examples. We then use AdvScore to motivate a new dataset creation pipeline for realistic and high-quality adversarial samples, enabling us to collect an adversarial question answering (QA) dataset, AdvQA. We apply AdvScore using 9,347 human responses and ten language models' predictions to track model improvement over five years, from 2020 to 2024. AdvScore thus provides guidance for achieving robustness comparable with human capabilities. Furthermore, it helps determine to what extent adversarial datasets continue to pose challenges, ensuring that, rather than reflecting outdated or overly artificial difficulties, they effectively test model capabilities. △ Less

Submitted 18 February, 2025; v1 submitted 24 June, 2024; originally announced June 2024.

Comments: arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:2401.11185

AutoHallusion: Automatic Generation of Hallucination Benchmarks for Vision-Language Models

Authors: Xiyang Wu, Tianrui Guan, Dianqi Li, Shuaiyi Huang, Xiaoyu Liu, Xijun Wang, Ruiqi Xian, Abhinav Shrivastava, Furong Huang, Jordan Lee Boyd-Graber, Tianyi Zhou, Dinesh Manocha

Abstract: Large vision-language models (LVLMs) are prone to hallucinations, where certain contextual cues in an image can trigger the language module to produce overconfident and incorrect reasoning about abnormal or hypothetical objects. While some benchmarks have been developed to investigate LVLM hallucinations, they often rely on hand-crafted corner cases whose failure patterns may not generalize well.… ▽ More Large vision-language models (LVLMs) are prone to hallucinations, where certain contextual cues in an image can trigger the language module to produce overconfident and incorrect reasoning about abnormal or hypothetical objects. While some benchmarks have been developed to investigate LVLM hallucinations, they often rely on hand-crafted corner cases whose failure patterns may not generalize well. Additionally, fine-tuning on these examples could undermine their validity. To address this, we aim to scale up the number of cases through an automated approach, reducing human bias in crafting such corner cases. This motivates the development of AutoHallusion, the first automated benchmark generation approach that employs several key strategies to create a diverse range of hallucination examples. Our generated visual-question pairs pose significant challenges to LVLMs, requiring them to overcome contextual biases and distractions to arrive at correct answers. AutoHallusion enables us to create new benchmarks at the minimum cost and thus overcomes the fragility of hand-crafted benchmarks. It also reveals common failure patterns and reasons, providing key insights to detect, avoid, or control hallucinations. Comprehensive evaluations of top-tier LVLMs, e.g., GPT-4V(ision), Gemini Pro Vision, Claude 3, and LLaVA-1.5, show a 97.7% and 98.7% success rate of hallucination induction on synthetic and real-world datasets of AutoHallusion, paving the way for a long battle against hallucinations. The codebase and data can be accessed at https://github.com/wuxiyang1996/AutoHallusion. △ Less

Submitted 8 October, 2024; v1 submitted 16 June, 2024; originally announced June 2024.

More Victories, Less Cooperation: Assessing Cicero's Diplomacy Play

Authors: Wichayaporn Wongkamjan, Feng Gu, Yanze Wang, Ulf Hermjakob, Jonathan May, Brandon M. Stewart, Jonathan K. Kummerfeld, Denis Peskoff, Jordan Lee Boyd-Graber

Abstract: The boardgame Diplomacy is a challenging setting for communicative and cooperative artificial intelligence. The most prominent communicative Diplomacy AI, Cicero, has excellent strategic abilities, exceeding human players. However, the best Diplomacy players master communication, not just tactics, which is why the game has received attention as an AI challenge. This work seeks to understand the de… ▽ More The boardgame Diplomacy is a challenging setting for communicative and cooperative artificial intelligence. The most prominent communicative Diplomacy AI, Cicero, has excellent strategic abilities, exceeding human players. However, the best Diplomacy players master communication, not just tactics, which is why the game has received attention as an AI challenge. This work seeks to understand the degree to which Cicero succeeds at communication. First, we annotate in-game communication with abstract meaning representation to separate in-game tactics from general language. Second, we run two dozen games with humans and Cicero, totaling over 200 human-player hours of competition. While AI can consistently outplay human players, AI-Human communication is still limited because of AI's difficulty with deception and persuasion. This shows that Cicero relies on strategy and has not yet reached the full promise of communicative and cooperative AI. △ Less

Submitted 7 June, 2024; originally announced June 2024.

PEDANTS: Cheap but Effective and Interpretable Answer Equivalence

Authors: Zongxia Li, Ishani Mondal, Yijun Liang, Huy Nghiem, Jordan Lee Boyd-Graber

Abstract: Question answering (QA) can only make progress if we know if an answer is correct, but current answer correctness (AC) metrics struggle with verbose, free-form answers from large language models (LLMs). There are two challenges with current short-form QA evaluations: a lack of diverse styles of evaluation data and an over-reliance on expensive and slow LLMs. LLM-based scorers correlate better with… ▽ More Question answering (QA) can only make progress if we know if an answer is correct, but current answer correctness (AC) metrics struggle with verbose, free-form answers from large language models (LLMs). There are two challenges with current short-form QA evaluations: a lack of diverse styles of evaluation data and an over-reliance on expensive and slow LLMs. LLM-based scorers correlate better with humans, but this expensive task has only been tested on limited QA datasets. We rectify these issues by providing rubrics and datasets for evaluating machine QA adopted from the Trivia community. We also propose an efficient, and interpretable QA evaluation that is more stable than an exact match and neural methods(BERTScore). △ Less

Submitted 11 October, 2024; v1 submitted 16 February, 2024; originally announced February 2024.

Comments: Efficient PEDANTS Classifier for short-form QA in github: https://github.com/zli12321/qa_metrics. arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:2401.13170

Journal ref: Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing 2024

Bridging Background Knowledge Gaps in Translation with Automatic Explicitation

Authors: HyoJung Han, Jordan Lee Boyd-Graber, Marine Carpuat

Abstract: Translations help people understand content written in another language. However, even correct literal translations do not fulfill that goal when people lack the necessary background to understand them. Professional translators incorporate explicitations to explain the missing context by considering cultural differences between source and target audiences. Despite its potential to help users, NLP… ▽ More Translations help people understand content written in another language. However, even correct literal translations do not fulfill that goal when people lack the necessary background to understand them. Professional translators incorporate explicitations to explain the missing context by considering cultural differences between source and target audiences. Despite its potential to help users, NLP research on explicitation is limited because of the dearth of adequate evaluation methods. This work introduces techniques for automatically generating explicitations, motivated by WikiExpl: a dataset that we collect from Wikipedia and annotate with human translators. The resulting explicitations are useful as they help answer questions more accurately in a multilingual question answering framework. △ Less

Submitted 3 December, 2023; originally announced December 2023.

Comments: EMNLP2023