Large language models (LLMs) are prone to hallucinations and sensitive to prompt perturbations, often resulting in inconsistent or unreliable generated text. Different methods have been proposed to mitigate such hallucinations and fragility, one of which is to measure the consistency of LLM responses -- the model's confidence in the response or likelihood of generating a similar response when resampled. In previous work, measuring LLM response consistency often relied on calculating the probability of a response appearing within a pool of resampled responses, analyzing internal states, or evaluating logits of responses. However, it was not clear how well these approaches approximated users' perceptions of consistency of LLM responses. To find out, we performed a user study ($n=2,976$) demonstrating that current methods for measuring LLM response consistency typically do not align well with humans' perceptions of LLM consistency. We propose a logit-based ensemble method for estimating LLM consistency and show that our method matches the performance of the best-performing existing metric in estimating human ratings of LLM consistency. Our results suggest that methods for estimating LLM consistency without human evaluation are sufficiently imperfect to warrant broader use of evaluation with human input; this would avoid misjudging the adequacy of models because of the imperfections of automated consistency metrics.

Intransitive verbs fall into two different syntactic classes, unergatives and unaccusatives. It has long been argued that verbs describing an agentive action are more likely to appear in an unergative syntax, and those describing a telic event to appear in an unaccusative syntax. However, recent work by Kim et al. (2024) found that human ratings for agentivity and telicity were a poor predictor of the syntactic behavior of intransitives. Here we revisit this question using interpretable dimensions, computed from seed words on opposite poles of the agentive and telic scales. Our findings support the link between unergativity/unaccusativity and agentivity/telicity, and demonstrate that using interpretable dimensions in conjunction with human judgments can offer valuable evidence for semantic properties that are not easily evaluated in rating tasks.

While recent research suggests Large Language Models match human creative performance in divergent thinking tasks, visual creativity remains underexplored. This study compared image generation in human participants (Visual Artists and Non Artists) and using an image generation AI model (two prompting conditions with varying human input: high for Human Inspired, low for Self Guided). Human raters (N=255) and GPT4o evaluated the creativity of the resulting images. We found a clear creativity gradient, with Visual Artists being the most creative, followed by Non Artists, then Human Inspired generative AI, and finally Self Guided generative AI. Increased human guidance strongly improved GenAI's creative output, bringing its productions close to those of Non Artists. Notably, human and AI raters also showed vastly different creativity judgment patterns. These results suggest that, in contrast to language centered tasks, GenAI models may face unique challenges in visual domains, where creativity depends on perceptual nuance and contextual sensitivity, distinctly human capacities that may not be readily transferable from language models.

Sentiment Analysis is widely used to quantify sentiment in text, but its application to literary texts poses unique challenges due to figurative language, stylistic ambiguity, as well as sentiment evocation strategies. Traditional dictionary-based tools often underperform, especially for low-resource languages, and transformer models, while promising, typically output coarse categorical labels that limit fine-grained analysis. We introduce a novel continuous sentiment scoring method based on concept vector projection, trained on multilingual literary data, which more effectively captures nuanced sentiment expressions across genres, languages, and historical periods. Our approach outperforms existing tools on English and Danish texts, producing sentiment scores whose distribution closely matches human ratings, enabling more accurate analysis and sentiment arc modeling in literature.

We investigate the degree to which human plausibility judgments of multiple-choice commonsense benchmark answers are subject to influence by (im)plausibility arguments for or against an answer, in particular, using rationales generated by LLMs. We collect 3,000 plausibility judgments from humans and another 13,600 judgments from LLMs. Overall, we observe increases and decreases in mean human plausibility ratings in the presence of LLM-generated PRO and CON rationales, respectively, suggesting that, on the whole, human judges find these rationales convincing. Experiments with LLMs reveal similar patterns of influence. Our findings demonstrate a novel use of LLMs for studying aspects of human cognition, while also raising practical concerns that, even in domains where humans are ``experts'' (i.e., common sense), LLMs have the potential to exert considerable influence on people's beliefs.

As Generative AI (GenAI) systems see growing adoption, a key concern involves the external validity of evaluations, or the extent to which they generalize from lab-based to real-world deployment conditions. Threats to the external validity of GenAI evaluations arise when the source sample of human raters and system outputs used to obtain a system quality estimate differs from the target distribution at deployment time. In this work, we propose a doubly-robust estimation framework designed to address this evaluation sampling bias. Key to our approach is the use of "persona" ratings produced by prompting an LLM evaluator (i.e., an LLM-as-a-judge) to behave as a human rater with specific sociodemographic characteristics. Our doubly-robust framework combines these informative yet imperfect persona ratings with human ratings obtained under evaluation sampling bias to produce statistically valid system quality estimates. In particular, we show that our approach yields valid system quality estimates when either (i) a model trained to predict human ratings using persona ratings and source data observed under sampling bias, or (ii) a reweighting model that corrects for sampling bias is of sufficient quality. We validate our framework theoretically and via a novel Persona Simulation Framework (PSF) designed to systematically manipulate persona quality and the degree of evaluation sampling bias present in source data. Our work provides a principled foundation for combining imperfect persona ratings with human ratings observed under sampling bias to obtain valid system quality estimates.

We examined how model size, temperature, and prompt style affect Large Language Models' (LLMs) alignment within itself, between models, and with human in assessing clinical reasoning skills. Model size emerged as a key factor in LLM-human score alignment. Study highlights the importance of checking alignments across multiple levels.

Word-level psycholinguistic norms lend empirical support to theories of language processing. However, obtaining such human-based measures is not always feasible or straightforward. One promising approach is to augment human norming datasets by using Large Language Models (LLMs) to predict these characteristics directly, a practice that is rapidly gaining popularity in psycholinguistics and cognitive science. However, the novelty of this approach (and the relative inscrutability of LLMs) necessitates the adoption of rigorous methodologies that guide researchers through this process, present the range of possible approaches, and clarify limitations that are not immediately apparent, but may, in some cases, render the use of LLMs impractical. In this work, we present a comprehensive methodology for estimating word characteristics with LLMs, enriched with practical advice and lessons learned from our own experience. Our approach covers both the direct use of base LLMs and the fine-tuning of models, an alternative that can yield substantial performance gains in certain scenarios. A major emphasis in the guide is the validation of LLM-generated data with human "gold standard" norms. We also present a software framework that implements our methodology and supports both commercial and open-weight models. We illustrate the proposed approach with a case study on estimating word familiarity in English. Using base models, we achieved a Spearman correlation of 0.8 with human ratings, which increased to 0.9 when employing fine-tuned models. This methodology, framework, and set of best practices aim to serve as a reference for future research on leveraging LLMs for psycholinguistic and lexical studies.

Semantic similarity between two sentences depends on the aspects considered between those sentences. To study this phenomenon, Deshpande et al. (2023) proposed the Conditional Semantic Textual Similarity (C-STS) task and annotated a human-rated similarity dataset containing pairs of sentences compared under two different conditions. However, Tu et al. (2024) found various annotation issues in this dataset and showed that manually re-annotating a small portion of it leads to more accurate C-STS models. Despite these pioneering efforts, the lack of large and accurately annotated C-STS datasets remains a blocker for making progress on this task as evidenced by the subpar performance of the C-STS models. To address this training data need, we resort to Large Language Models (LLMs) to correct the condition statements and similarity ratings in the original dataset proposed by Deshpande et al. (2023). Our proposed method is able to re-annotate a large training dataset for the C-STS task with minimal manual effort. Importantly, by training a supervised C-STS model on our cleaned and re-annotated dataset, we achieve a 5.4% statistically significant improvement in Spearman correlation. The re-annotated dataset is available at https://LivNLP.github.io/CSTS-reannotation.

Despite advances in natural language generation and understanding, LM still struggle with fine grained linguistic phenomena such as tense, negation, voice, and modality which are the elements central to effective human communication. In the context of the United Nations SDG 4, where linguistic clarity is critical, the deployment of LMs in educational technologies demands careful scrutiny. As LMs are increasingly powering applications like tutoring systems, automated grading, and translation, their alignment with human linguistic interpretation becomes essential for effective learning. In this study, we conduct a evaluation of SOTA language models across these challenging contexts in both English and Bengali. To ensure a structured assessment, we introduce a new Route for Evaluation of Cognitive Inference in Systematic Environments guidelines. Our proposed LUCID dataset, composed of carefully crafted sentence pairs in English and Bengali, specifically challenges these models on critical aspects of language comprehension, including negation, tense, voice variations. We assess the performance of SOTA models including MISTRAL-SABA-24B, LLaMA-4-Scout-17B, LLaMA-3.3-70B, Gemma2-9B, and Compound-Beta using standard metrics like Pearson correlation, Spearman correlation, and Mean Absolute Error, as well as novel, linguistically inspired metric the HCE accuracy. The HCE accuracy measures how often model predictions fall within one standard deviation of the mean human rating, thus capturing human like tolerance for variability in language interpretation. Our findings highlight Compound-Beta as the most balanced model, consistently achieving high correlations and low MAEs across diverse language conditions. It records the highest Pearson correlation in English and demonstrates robust performance on mixed-language data, indicating a strong alignment with human judgments in cross lingual scenarios.