Diverging Preferences: When do Annotators Disagree and do Models Know?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.14632v2
• Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2024 16:54:48 GMT
• Title: Diverging Preferences: When do Annotators Disagree and do Models Know?
• Authors: Michael JQ Zhang, Zhilin Wang, Jena D. Hwang, Yi Dong, Olivier Delalleau, Yejin Choi, Eunsol Choi, Xiang Ren, Valentina Pyatkin,
• Abstract summary: We develop a taxonomy of disagreement sources spanning 10 categories across four high-level classes. We find that the majority of disagreements are in opposition with standard reward modeling approaches. We develop methods for identifying diverging preferences to mitigate their influence on evaluation and training.
• Score: 92.24651142187989
• License:
• Abstract: We examine diverging preferences in human-labeled preference datasets. We develop a taxonomy of disagreement sources spanning 10 categories across four high-level classes -- task underspecification, response style, refusals, and annotation errors. We find that the majority of disagreements are in opposition with standard reward modeling approaches, which are designed with the assumption that annotator disagreement is noise. We then explore how these findings impact two areas of LLM development: reward modeling and evaluation. In our experiments, we demonstrate how standard reward modeling methods, like the Bradley-Terry model, fail to differentiate whether a given preference judgment is the result of unanimous agreement among annotators or the majority opinion among diverging user preferences. We also find that these tendencies are also echoed by popular LLM-as-Judge evaluation methods, which consistently identify a winning response in cases of diverging preferences. These findings highlight remaining challenges in LLM evaluations, which are greatly influenced by divisive features like response style, and in developing pluralistically aligned LLMs. To address these issues, we develop methods for identifying diverging preferences to mitigate their influence on evaluation and training.

Related papers

• Enhancing LLM Evaluations: The Garbling Trick [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) become increasingly powerful, making it challenging to distinguish between models based on their performance. We propose a general method to transform existing LLM evaluations into a series of progressively more difficult tasks. Our results offer insights into the comparative reasoning abilities of these models, particularly highlighting distinctions between OpenAI's o1-preview and Google's gemini-pro-1.5.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-03T11:39:50Z)
• ComPO: Community Preferences for Language Model Personalization [122.54846260663922]
  ComPO is a method to personalize preference optimization in language models. We collect and release ComPRed, a question answering dataset with community-level preferences from Reddit.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T14:02:40Z)
• AI Can Be Cognitively Biased: An Exploratory Study on Threshold Priming in LLM-Based Batch Relevance Assessment [37.985947029716016]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown advanced understanding capabilities but may inherit human biases from their training data. We investigated whether LLMs are influenced by the threshold priming effect in relevance judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-24T12:23:15Z)
• The Mismeasure of Man and Models: Evaluating Allocational Harms in Large Language Models [22.75594773147521]
  We introduce Rank-Allocation-Based Bias Index (RABBI), a model-agnostic bias measure that assesses potential allocational harms arising from biases in large language models (LLMs) Our results reveal that commonly-used bias metrics based on average performance gap and distribution distance fail to reliably capture group disparities in allocation outcomes. Our work highlights the need to account for how models are used in contexts with limited resource constraints.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-02T14:13:06Z)
• Preference Fine-Tuning of LLMs Should Leverage Suboptimal, On-Policy Data [102.16105233826917]
  Learning from preference labels plays a crucial role in fine-tuning large language models. There are several distinct approaches for preference fine-tuning, including supervised learning, on-policy reinforcement learning (RL), and contrastive learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-22T17:20:18Z)
• Exploring Value Biases: How LLMs Deviate Towards the Ideal [57.99044181599786]
  Large-Language-Models (LLMs) are deployed in a wide range of applications, and their response has an increasing social impact. We show that value bias is strong in LLMs across different categories, similar to the results found in human studies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-16T18:28:43Z)
• GPTBIAS: A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluating Bias in Large Language Models [83.30078426829627]
  Large language models (LLMs) have gained popularity and are being widely adopted by a large user community. The existing evaluation methods have many constraints, and their results exhibit a limited degree of interpretability. We propose a bias evaluation framework named GPTBIAS that leverages the high performance of LLMs to assess bias in models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-11T12:02:14Z)
• PRD: Peer Rank and Discussion Improve Large Language Model based Evaluations [10.709365940160685]
  Modern large language models (LLMs) are hard to evaluate and compare automatically. We propose a peer rank (PR) algorithm that takes into account each peer LLM's pairwise preferences of all answer pairs. We find that our approaches achieve higher accuracy and align better with human judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-06T04:05:44Z)
• In Search of Insights, Not Magic Bullets: Towards Demystification of the Model Selection Dilemma in Heterogeneous Treatment Effect Estimation [92.51773744318119]
  This paper empirically investigates the strengths and weaknesses of different model selection criteria. We highlight that there is a complex interplay between selection strategies, candidate estimators and the data used for comparing them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-06T16:55:37Z)

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.