Challenges in Trustworthy Human Evaluation of Chatbots

December 05, 2024 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Wenting Zhao, Alexander M. Rush, Tanya Goyal arXiv ID 2412.04363 Category cs.HC: Human-Computer Interaction Citations 11 Venue North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics Last Checked 4 months ago
Abstract
Open community-driven platforms like Chatbot Arena that collect user preference data from site visitors have gained a reputation as one of the most trustworthy publicly available benchmarks for LLM performance. While now standard, it is tricky to implement effective guardrails to collect high-quality annotations from humans. In this paper, we demonstrate that three sources of bad annotations, both malicious and otherwise, can corrupt the reliability of open leaderboard rankings. In particular, we show that only 10\% of poor quality votes by apathetic (site visitors not appropriately incentivized to give correct votes) or adversarial (bad actors seeking to inflate the ranking of a target model) annotators can change the rankings of models by up to 5 places on the leaderboard. Finally, we discuss open challenges in ensuring high-quality human annotations.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Human-Computer Interaction

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted