Rethinking Human Preference Evaluation of LLM Rationales

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.11026v1
• Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2025 01:33:14 GMT
• Title: Rethinking Human Preference Evaluation of LLM Rationales
• Authors: Ziang Li, Manasi Ganti, Zixian Ma, Helena Vasconcelos, Qijia He, Ranjay Krishna,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) often generate natural language rationales that help improve performance on complex reasoning tasks and enhance interpretability for human users.<n>This work asks: What attributes define good rationales?<n>We then analyze two standard human preference evaluation datasets to identify which attributes best explain human preference outcomes.<n>Our findings suggest that fine-grained attribute evaluations can better characterize rationale quality and guide future research toward more interpretable and reliable evaluation practices.
• Score: 35.5756891102128
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) often generate natural language rationales -- free-form explanations that help improve performance on complex reasoning tasks and enhance interpretability for human users. However, evaluating these rationales remains challenging. While recent work has relied on binary preference judgments from humans or LLM judges, such evaluations are often opaque and coarse-grained, offering limited insight into what makes one rationale better than another. In this work, we rethink preference evaluation for LLM-generated rationales by asking: (1) What attributes define good rationales? (2) Can human preferences be explained by these attributes? (3) Can attribute-based evaluation overcome the limitations of binary comparisons? We identify a set of key rationale attributes from prior literature and assess them using automatic metrics, LLM judgments, and human annotations. We then analyze two standard human preference datasets MT Bench and Chatbot Arena using SHAP to identify which attributes best explain human preference outcomes. Finally, we re-evaluate model-generated rationales using attribute-specific ELO scores, revealing more nuanced model comparisons and insights. Our findings suggest that fine-grained attribute evaluations can better characterize rationale quality and guide future research toward more interpretable and reliable evaluation practices.

Related papers

• Comparison of Scoring Rationales Between Large Language Models and Human Raters [3.4283859937936705]
  This study investigates the rationales of human and LLM raters to identify potential causes of scoring inconsistency.<n>Using essays from a large-scale test, the scoring accuracy of GPT-4o, Gemini, and other LLMs is examined.<n>Cosine similarity is used to evaluate the similarity of the rationales provided.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-27T16:58:51Z)
• Towards Understanding the Robustness of LLM-based Evaluations under Perturbations [9.944512689015998]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) can serve as automatic evaluators for non-standardized metrics in summarization and dialog-based tasks.<n>We conduct experiments across multiple prompting strategies to examine how LLMs fare as quality evaluators when compared with human judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-12T13:31:58Z)
• Evaluating Human Alignment and Model Faithfulness of LLM Rationale [66.75309523854476]
  We study how well large language models (LLMs) explain their generations through rationales. We show that prompting-based methods are less "faithful" than attribution-based explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T20:06:30Z)
• Calibrating LLMs with Preference Optimization on Thought Trees for Generating Rationale in Science Question Scoring [16.38771834692938]
  We propose a novel framework capable of generating more faithful rationales and, more importantly, matching performance with black-box scoring systems. We first mimic the human assessment process by querying Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate a thought tree. We then summarise intermediate assessment decisions from each thought tree path for creating synthetic rationale data and rationale preference data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T14:33:05Z)
• Fairer Preferences Elicit Improved Human-Aligned Large Language Model Judgments [41.25558612970942]
  We show that large language models (LLMs) exhibit preference biases and worrying sensitivity to prompt designs. Motivated by this phenomenon, we propose an automatic Zero-shot Evaluation-oriented Prompt Optimization framework, ZEPO.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-17T09:48:53Z)
• HD-Eval: Aligning Large Language Model Evaluators Through Hierarchical Criteria Decomposition [92.17397504834825]
  HD-Eval is a framework that iteratively aligns large language models evaluators with human preference. HD-Eval inherits the essence from the evaluation mindset of human experts and enhances the alignment of LLM-based evaluators. Extensive experiments on three evaluation domains demonstrate the superiority of HD-Eval in further aligning state-of-the-art evaluators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-24T08:01:32Z)
• CLOMO: Counterfactual Logical Modification with Large Language Models [109.60793869938534]
  We introduce a novel task, Counterfactual Logical Modification (CLOMO), and a high-quality human-annotated benchmark. In this task, LLMs must adeptly alter a given argumentative text to uphold a predetermined logical relationship. We propose an innovative evaluation metric, the Self-Evaluation Score (SES), to directly evaluate the natural language output of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-29T08:29:54Z)
• Exploring the Reliability of Large Language Models as Customized Evaluators for Diverse NLP Tasks [65.69651759036535]
  We analyze whether large language models (LLMs) can serve as reliable alternatives to humans.<n>This paper explores both conventional tasks (e.g., story generation) and alignment tasks (e.g., math reasoning)<n>We find that LLM evaluators can generate unnecessary criteria or omit crucial criteria, resulting in a slight deviation from the experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T17:04:35Z)
• FLASK: Fine-grained Language Model Evaluation based on Alignment Skill Sets [69.91340332545094]
  We introduce FLASK, a fine-grained evaluation protocol for both human-based and model-based evaluation. We experimentally observe that the fine-graininess of evaluation is crucial for attaining a holistic view of model performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-20T14:56:35Z)
• Using Natural Language Explanations to Rescale Human Judgments [81.66697572357477]
  We propose a method to rescale ordinal annotations and explanations using large language models (LLMs)<n>We feed annotators' Likert ratings and corresponding explanations into an LLM and prompt it to produce a numeric score anchored in a scoring rubric.<n>Our method rescales the raw judgments without impacting agreement and brings the scores closer to human judgments grounded in the same scoring rubric.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T06:19:14Z)

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.