Who's Thinking? A Push for Human-Centered Evaluation of LLMs using the XAI Playbook

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2303.06223v1
• Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2023 22:15:49 GMT
• Title: Who's Thinking? A Push for Human-Centered Evaluation of LLMs using the XAI Playbook
• Authors: Teresa Datta and John P. Dickerson
• Abstract summary: We draw parallels between the relatively mature field of XAI and the rapidly evolving research boom around large language models. We argue that humans' tendencies should rest front and center when evaluating deployed large language models.
• Score: 30.985555463848264
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Deployed artificial intelligence (AI) often impacts humans, and there is no one-size-fits-all metric to evaluate these tools. Human-centered evaluation of AI-based systems combines quantitative and qualitative analysis and human input. It has been explored to some depth in the explainable AI (XAI) and human-computer interaction (HCI) communities. Gaps remain, but the basic understanding that humans interact with AI and accompanying explanations, and that humans' needs -- complete with their cognitive biases and quirks -- should be held front and center, is accepted by the community. In this paper, we draw parallels between the relatively mature field of XAI and the rapidly evolving research boom around large language models (LLMs). Accepted evaluative metrics for LLMs are not human-centered. We argue that many of the same paths tread by the XAI community over the past decade will be retread when discussing LLMs. Specifically, we argue that humans' tendencies -- again, complete with their cognitive biases and quirks -- should rest front and center when evaluating deployed LLMs. We outline three developed focus areas of human-centered evaluation of XAI: mental models, use case utility, and cognitive engagement, and we highlight the importance of exploring each of these concepts for LLMs. Our goal is to jumpstart human-centered LLM evaluation.

Related papers

• Measurement of LLM's Philosophies of Human Nature [113.47929131143766]
  We design the standardized psychological scale specifically targeting large language models (LLM) We show that current LLMs exhibit a systemic lack of trust in humans. We propose a mental loop learning framework, which enables LLM to continuously optimize its value system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-03T06:22:19Z)
• How Deep is Love in LLMs' Hearts? Exploring Semantic Size in Human-like Cognition [75.11808682808065]
  This study investigates whether large language models (LLMs) exhibit similar tendencies in understanding semantic size. Our findings reveal that multi-modal training is crucial for LLMs to achieve more human-like understanding. Lastly, we examine whether LLMs are influenced by attention-grabbing headlines with larger semantic sizes in a real-world web shopping scenario.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-01T03:35:56Z)
• Identifying Features that Shape Perceived Consciousness in Large Language Model-based AI: A Quantitative Study of Human Responses [4.369058206183195]
  This study quantitively examines which features of AI-generated text lead humans to perceive subjective consciousness in large language model (LLM)-based AI systems. Using regression and clustering analyses, we investigated how these features influence participants' perceptions of AI consciousness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-21T10:27:28Z)
• Aligning Generalisation Between Humans and Machines [74.120848518198]
  Recent advances in AI have resulted in technology that can support humans in scientific discovery and decision support but may also disrupt democracies and target individuals. The responsible use of AI increasingly shows the need for human-AI teaming. A crucial yet often overlooked aspect of these interactions is the different ways in which humans and machines generalise.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-23T18:36:07Z)
• Entering Real Social World! Benchmarking the Theory of Mind and Socialization Capabilities of LLMs from a First-person Perspective [22.30892836263764]
  In the era of artificial intelligence (AI), especially with the development of large language models (LLMs), we raise an intriguing question. How do LLMs perform in terms of ToM and socialization capabilities? We introduce EgoSocialArena, a novel framework designed to evaluate and investigate the ToM and socialization capabilities of LLMs from a first person perspective.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-08T16:55:51Z)
• ValueCompass: A Framework of Fundamental Values for Human-AI Alignment [15.35489011078817]
  We introduce Value, a framework of fundamental values, grounded in psychological theory and a systematic review. We apply Value to measure the value alignment of humans and language models (LMs) across four real-world vignettes. Our findings uncover risky misalignment between humans and LMs, such as LMs agreeing with values like "Choose Own Goals", which are largely disagreed by humans.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-15T02:13:03Z)
• Rel-A.I.: An Interaction-Centered Approach To Measuring Human-LM Reliance [73.19687314438133]
  We study how reliance is affected by contextual features of an interaction. We find that contextual characteristics significantly affect human reliance behavior. Our results show that calibration and language quality alone are insufficient in evaluating the risks of human-LM interactions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-10T18:00:05Z)
• Towards Bidirectional Human-AI Alignment: A Systematic Review for Clarifications, Framework, and Future Directions [101.67121669727354]
  Recent advancements in AI have highlighted the importance of guiding AI systems towards the intended goals, ethical principles, and values of individuals and groups, a concept broadly recognized as alignment. The lack of clarified definitions and scopes of human-AI alignment poses a significant obstacle, hampering collaborative efforts across research domains to achieve this alignment. We introduce a systematic review of over 400 papers published between 2019 and January 2024, spanning multiple domains such as Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), Natural Language Processing (NLP), Machine Learning (ML)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-13T16:03:25Z)
• Explainable Human-AI Interaction: A Planning Perspective [32.477369282996385]
  AI systems need to be explainable to the humans in the loop. We will discuss how the AI agent can use mental models to either conform to human expectations, or change those expectations through explanatory communication. While the main focus of the book is on cooperative scenarios, we will point out how the same mental models can be used for obfuscation and deception.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-19T22:22:21Z)
• Human-Modeling in Sequential Decision-Making: An Analysis through the Lens of Human-Aware AI [20.21053807133341]
  We try to provide an account of what constitutes a human-aware AI system. We see that human-aware AI is a design oriented paradigm, one that focuses on the need for modeling the humans it may interact with.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-13T14:17:52Z)
• Beyond Human Norms: Unveiling Unique Values of Large Language Models through Interdisciplinary Approaches [69.73783026870998]
  This work proposes a novel framework, ValueLex, to reconstruct Large Language Models' unique value system from scratch. Based on Lexical Hypothesis, ValueLex introduces a generative approach to elicit diverse values from 30+ LLMs. We identify three core value dimensions, Competence, Character, and Integrity, each with specific subdimensions, revealing that LLMs possess a structured, albeit non-human, value system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-19T09:44:51Z)
• Beyond Static Evaluation: A Dynamic Approach to Assessing AI Assistants' API Invocation Capabilities [48.922660354417204]
  We propose Automated Dynamic Evaluation (AutoDE) to assess an assistant's API call capability without human involvement. In our framework, we endeavor to closely mirror genuine human conversation patterns in human-machine interactions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-17T07:34:12Z)
• Best-Response Bayesian Reinforcement Learning with Bayes-adaptive POMDPs for Centaurs [22.52332536886295]
  We present a novel formulation of the interaction between the human and the AI as a sequential game. We show that in this case the AI's problem of helping bounded-rational humans make better decisions reduces to a Bayes-adaptive POMDP. We discuss ways in which the machine can learn to improve upon its own limitations as well with the help of the human.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-03T21:00:51Z)
• On some Foundational Aspects of Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence [52.03866242565846]
  There is no clear definition of what is meant by Human Centered Artificial Intelligence. This paper introduces the term HCAI agent to refer to any physical or software computational agent equipped with AI components. We see the notion of HCAI agent, together with its components and functions, as a way to bridge the technical and non-technical discussions on human-centered AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-29T09:58:59Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.