arXiv:2601. 02813v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Aligning language models to qualitative behavioral traits, such as human-likeness, remains difficult because they are hard to define, measure, and optimize.
arXiv:2605. 28882v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: With the rapid advancement of large language models, evaluating human-likeness in open-ended conversation has become increasingly important.
The paper reports the first Turing test for speech‑to‑speech systems, gathering 2,968 human judgments on conversations between nine state‑of‑the‑art S2S systems and 28 humans. None of the evaluated systems passed the test, highlighting a clear gap in human‑likeness. The authors diagnose the failure with an 18‑dimension taxonomy, finding that paralinguistic cues, emotional expressivity, and conversational persona—not semantic understanding—are the main bottlenecks, and they propose an interpretable model for automatic human‑vs‑machine discrimination.
arXiv:2606. 06614v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Despite growing interest, most evaluations of large language models' (LLMs') personalization abilities have relied on synthetic data.
arXiv:2609.01246v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Current Large Language Models (LLMs) are primarily optimized for written text, often producing outputs that are grammatically correct and helpful yet p...
The paper introduces TUX, a Tacit Understanding Index that measures how similarly humans and large language models (LLMs) place concepts along subjective spectra in a task inspired by the game Wavelength. Using 241 human participants and 200 profile-conditioned LLM agents across four models, the study finds that human–agent pairs with similar traits achieve higher TUX scores, indicating that tacit alignment is linked to person-level characteristics. Regression analyses show that richer predictor sets—including individual traits, decision-making styles, and confidence—improve the explainability of TUX beyond simple trait-distance baselines.
arXiv:2606. 12754v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Are large language models (LLMs) bad at capturing human judgment?
The paper proposes a method for culturally aligning large language models (LLMs) using soft prompt tuning optimized via Differential Evolution (DE). Unlike traditional fine‑tuning or reinforcement learning, this approach keeps model weights frozen and requires no preference data, instead leveraging aggregated survey scores from Hofstede's Value Survey Module (VSM13). Experiments on four countries and four instruction‑tuned models show that DE‑optimized prompts reduce cultural discrepancy, improve agreement with the World Values Survey, and are preferred in blinded pairwise evaluations by LLM judges.
The paper introduces DIAL, a framework that uses large language models (LLMs) as judges while mitigating position bias and aligning their judgments with human preferences. DIAL separates judge‑specific position effects, learns shared structure in debiased LLM preferences, and adaptively calibrates this structure toward human targets using limited human comparisons. Experiments on simulations and three human‑preference benchmarks show that DIAL remains robust to unbalanced response order, achieves strong human‑aligned rankings with few labels, and adapts when LLM information is imperfect, supported by a real‑data study of over 410K judgments from 21 LLM judges.
arXiv:2607. 12085v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating retail conversational agents requires methods beyond lexical-overlap metrics to assess intent alignment, factuality, helpfulness, clarity, tone, and overall response quality.
PADM'E is a method for synthesizing preference‑aligned data to meta‑evaluate language‑model (LM) evaluators of agentic behaviors. It reframes meta‑evaluation as a preference judgment problem, generating criterion‑based data with small LMs and no human involvement. In a prototype, PADM'E produced 1,000 samples across four domains and three criteria, and human validation showed agreement with human judgment rising from 73% to 85% compared to a naive baseline.
arXiv:2608. 01423v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Reference-based text evaluation metrics, which are widely used to assess natural language generation systems, score a candidate response by comparing it with a reference response.
Large Language Models (LLMs) as judges across various scenarios such as assessing model responses is becoming an increasingly accepted paradigm. However, existing judgment approaches often rely on trained judgers using fixed preference data, which tend to overlook diverse user preferences and struggle to adapt to real-world human-AI dialogue scenarios.