Much recent work seeks to evaluate values and opinions in large language models (LLMs) using multiple-choice surveys and questionnaires. Most of this work is motivated by concerns around real-world LLM applications. For example, politically-biased LLMs may subtly influence society when they are used by millions of people. Such real-world concerns, however, stand in stark contrast to the artificiality of current evaluations: real users do not typically ask LLMs survey questions. Motivated by this discrepancy, we challenge the prevailing constrained evaluation paradigm for values and opinions in LLMs and explore more realistic unconstrained evaluations. As a case study, we focus on the popular Political Compass Test (PCT). In a systematic review, we find that most prior work using the PCT forces models to comply with the PCT's multiple-choice format. We show that models give substantively different answers when not forced; that answers change depending on how models are forced; and that answers lack paraphrase robustness. Then, we demonstrate that models give different answers yet again in a more realistic open-ended answer setting. We distill these findings into recommendations and open challenges in evaluating values and opinions in LLMs.

We investigate MT evaluation metric performance on adversarially-synthesized texts, to shed light on metric robustness. We experiment with word- and character-level attacks on three popular machine translation metrics: BERTScore, BLEURT, and COMET. Our human experiments validate that automatic metrics tend to overpenalize adversarially-degraded translations. We also identify inconsistencies in BERTScore ratings, where it judges the original sentence and the adversarially-degraded one as similar, while judging the degraded translation as notably worse than the original with respect to the reference. We identify patterns of brittleness that motivate more robust metric development.