The release of ChatGPT in November 2022 sparked an explosion of interest in post-training and an avalanche of new preference optimization (PO) methods. These methods claim superior alignment by virtue of better correspondence with human pairwise preferences, often measured by LLM-judges. In this work, we attempt to answer the following question -- do LLM-judge preferences translate to progress on other, more concrete metrics for alignment, and if not, why not? We define a concrete metric for alignment, and introduce SOS-Bench (Substance Outweighs Style Benchmark), which is to the best of our knowledge the largest standardized, reproducible LLM meta-benchmark to date. We find that (1) LLM-judge preferences do not correlate with concrete measures of safety, world knowledge, and instruction following; (2) LLM-judges have powerful implicit biases, prioritizing style over factuality and safety; and (3) the supervised fine-tuning (SFT) stage of post-training, and not the PO stage, has the greatest impact on alignment, with data scaling and prompt diversity as the driving factors. Our codebase and complete results can be found at https://github.com/penfever/sos-bench.

As machine learning models are increasingly being employed to make consequential decisions in real-world settings, it becomes critical to ensure that individuals who are adversely impacted (e.g., loan denied) by the predictions of these models are provided with a means for recourse. While several approaches have been proposed to construct recourses for affected individuals, the recourses output by these methods either achieve low costs (i.e., ease-of-implementation) or robustness to small perturbations (i.e., noisy implementations of recourses), but not both due to the inherent trade-offs between the recourse costs and robustness. Furthermore, prior approaches do not provide end users with any agency over navigating the aforementioned trade-offs. In this work, we address the above challenges by proposing the first algorithmic framework which enables users to effectively manage the recourse cost vs. More specifically, our framework Probabilistically ROBust rEcourse (PROBE) lets users choose the probability with which a recourse could get invalidated (recourse invalidation rate) if small changes are made to the recourse i.e., the recourse is implemented somewhat noisily. To this end, we propose a novel objective function which simultaneously minimizes the gap between the achieved (resulting) and desired recourse invalidation rates, minimizes recourse costs, and also ensures that the resulting recourse achieves a positive model prediction. We develop novel theoretical results to characterize the recourse invalidation rates corresponding to any given instance w.r.t. Experimental evaluation with multiple real world datasets demonstrates the efficacy of the proposed framework. Machine learning (ML) models are increasingly being deployed to make a variety of consequential decisions in domains such as finance, healthcare, and policy. Consequently, there is a growing emphasis on designing tools and techniques which can provide recourse to individuals who have been adversely impacted by the predictions of these models (Voigt & Von dem Bussche, 2017).

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.

Motivated by mitigating potentially harmful impacts of technologies, the AI community has formulated and accepted mathematical definitions for certain pillars of accountability: e.g. privacy, fairness, and model transparency. Yet, we argue this is fundamentally misguided because these definitions are imperfect, siloed constructions of the human values they hope to proxy, while giving the guise that those values are sufficiently embedded in our technologies. Under popularized methods, tensions arise when practitioners attempt to achieve each pillar of fairness, privacy, and transparency in isolation or simultaneously. In this position paper, we push for redirection. We argue that the AI community needs to consider all the consequences of choosing certain formulations of these pillars -- not just the technical incompatibilities, but also the effects within the context of deployment. We point towards sociotechnical research for frameworks for the latter, but push for broader efforts into implementing these in practice.