Predictions from language models for multiple-choice tasks are not robust under variation of scoring methods
This paper systematically compares different methods of deriving item-level predictions of language models for multiple-choice tasks. It compares scoring methods for answer options based on free generation of responses, various probability-based scores, a Likert-scale style rating method, and embedding similarity. In a case study on pragmatic language interpretation, we find that LLM predictions are not robust under variation of method choice, both within a single LLM and across different LLMs. As this variability entails pronounced researcher degrees of freedom in reporting results, knowledge of the variability is crucial to secure robustness of results and research integrity.
PDF AbstractTasks
Datasets
Add Datasets
introduced or used in this paper
Results from the Paper
Submit
results from this paper
to get state-of-the-art GitHub badges and help the
community compare results to other papers.
Methods
No methods listed for this paper. Add
relevant methods here
