Using Natural Language Explanations to Rescale Human Judgments

Overview

• The paper addresses the need for high-quality human-labeled data, particularly for processes like human feedback and evaluation, as large language models (LLMs) become more prevalent.
• It proposes a method to rescale ordinal annotations and explanations using LLMs to better capture the nuances in annotators' judgments.
• The technique is explored in the context of rating system outputs for a document-grounded question answering task, where LLMs achieve near-human performance.

Plain English Explanation

As large language models (LLMs) become more widely used, there is an increased need for high-quality human-labeled data, such as for evaluating the performance of these models. A common practice is to have multiple people (annotators) provide judgments or ratings on a set of examples, and then use the consensus of these judgments as the final label.

However, the paper notes that annotators' judgments can differ in several ways. They may have different qualitative assessments of an example, and they may translate those assessments into the provided labeling scheme in different ways. The paper proposes a method to better capture these nuances by using the annotators' Likert ratings (a type of ordinal scale) and their explanations for those ratings.

The key idea is to feed the ratings and explanations into an LLM, which then produces a numeric score that reflects the underlying assessment of the example. This score is anchored in a scoring rubric that can be designed or modified after the initial annotation process. This allows the rubric to include distinctions that may not have been known when the original error taxonomy was created.

The paper explores this technique in the context of rating the outputs of a document-grounded question answering system, where LLMs have achieved near-human performance. The method helps rescale the raw judgments without impacting agreement and brings the scores closer to human judgments based on the same scoring rubric.

Technical Explanation

The paper proposes a method to leverage the explanations provided by human annotators along with their ordinal ratings (e.g., Likert scales) to produce numeric scores that better capture the nuances of their judgments.

The key steps are:

1. Annotators provide Likert ratings and corresponding natural language explanations for a set of examples.
2. The ratings and explanations are fed into an LLM, which is then prompted to produce a numeric score anchored in a scoring rubric.
3. The numeric scores should reflect the annotators' underlying assessments of the examples, even if the original labeling scheme did not capture all the relevant distinctions.

The authors explore this approach in the context of evaluating the outputs of a document-grounded question answering system, where LLMs have achieved near-human performance. They find that the method can rescale the raw judgments without impacting agreement and brings the scores closer to human judgments based on the same scoring rubric.

Critical Analysis

The paper presents a novel approach to leveraging natural language explanations to improve the quality of human-labeled data, which is a critical need as LLMs become more widely used.

One potential limitation is the reliance on the LLM's ability to accurately interpret the annotators' explanations and produce meaningful numeric scores. The paper does not provide a detailed analysis of the LLM's performance in this task, and it would be important to understand the potential sources of error or bias in the LLM's scoring.

Additionally, the paper focuses on a specific use case of document-grounded question answering, and it's unclear how the method would generalize to other types of subjective tasks or labeling schemes. Further research would be needed to understand the broader applicability of this approach.

It would also be interesting to explore the use of Bayesian statistical modeling to incorporate the annotators' explanations, which may provide a more principled way to capture the underlying uncertainty and nuances in their judgments.

Conclusion

The paper presents a promising approach to leveraging natural language explanations to improve the quality of human-labeled data, which is a critical need as LLMs become more widely used. By using LLMs to rescale ordinal annotations and explanations, the method can capture the nuances in annotators' judgments and bring the scores closer to human judgments based on a common scoring rubric.

This work has the potential to enhance the reliability and usefulness of human-labeled data, which is essential for tasks like model evaluation, feedback, and training. Further research is needed to fully understand the strengths and limitations of this approach, but the paper represents an important step forward in addressing a key challenge in the age of large language models.