Challenge: Experiments with LLMs reveal similar patterns of influence on human plausibility judgments of commonsense benchmark answers.
Approach: They find that human plausibility judgments of commonsense benchmark answers are affected by implausibility arguments for or against an answer.
Outcome: The results show that human judges find LLM rationales convincing and that human annotators agree on the most plausible answer when the plausibility gap is wide.

Similar Papers

The LLM Effect: Are Humans Truly Using LLMs, or Are They Being Influenced By Them Instead? (2024.emnlp-main)

Copied to clipboard

Challenge: Large language models have shown capabilities close to human performance in various analytical tasks.
Approach: They investigate the efficiency and accuracy of Large Language Models in specialized tasks . they integrate LLMs with expert annotators to observe the impact of LLM suggestions .
Outcome: The proposed model improves task completion speed but introduces anchoring bias . the proposed model is not suitable for open-ended analysis, but is capable of handling specialized tasks.
How Language Models Conflate Logical Validity with Plausibility: A Representational Analysis of Content Effects (2026.findings-acl)

Copied to clipboard

Challenge: a number of theories have been proposed to account for content effects in large language models, including the dual-process theory of reasoning, but the mechanisms behind content effects remain unclear.
Approach: They propose to encode validity and plausibility concepts in LLMs by aligning them in representational geometry.
Outcome: The proposed model conflates validity and plausibility, and vice versa.
Humans or LLMs as the Judge? A Study on Judgement Bias (2024.emnlp-main)

Copied to clipboard

Challenge: Proprietary models such as GPT-4, Claude, Gemini-Pro and others are being democratized to improve evaluations of LLMs.
Approach: They propose a framework that is free from referencing groundtruth annotations for investigating **Misinformation Oversight Bias**, **Gender Bia**,**Authority Bia* and **Beauty Bia's** on LLM and human judges.
Outcome: The proposed framework investigates **Misinformation Oversight Bias**, **Gender Bia**,**Authority Bia* and **Beauty Bia' on LLM and human judges.
Dissecting Human and LLM Preferences (2024.acl-long)

Copied to clipboard

Challenge: a recent study shows that human and Large Language Model preferences are important for model fine-tuning and evaluation.
Approach: They dissect the preferences of human and 32 different Large Language Models to understand their quantitative composition.
Outcome: The proposed model is compared with 32 different large language models using real-world user-model conversations.
Are Machine Rationales (Not) Useful to Humans? Measuring and Improving Human Utility of Free-text Rationales (2023.acl-long)

Copied to clipboard

Challenge: Existing metrics like task performance of the LM generating the rationales or similarity between generated and gold rationale are not good indicators of their human utility.
Approach: They propose to use a large language model to generate rationales with better human utility by estimating its conciseness and novelty.
Outcome: The proposed model can measure human utility to a better extent by estimating its usefulness in answering similar unseen instances.
How Long Reasoning Chains Influence LLMs’ Judgment of Answer Factuality (2026.acl-long)

Copied to clipboard

Challenge: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly adopted as scalable judges for open-ended generation, yet how they form judgments remains insufficiently understood.
Approach: They show that exposing reasoning influences LLM-based judgment . they also show that reasoning fluency and factuality critically shape judgment outcomes .
Outcome: Empirical results show that the presence of reasoning significantly alters judgment behavior . stronger judges exhibit more selective behavior and achieve higher judgment accuracy .
Prior Beliefs Prejudice LLM-as-Judge: Evidence from Persuasion Evaluation (2026.findings-acl)

Copied to clipboard

Challenge: Large Language Models are increasingly used as judges to evaluate text quality, content and assess arguments.
Approach: They propose to exploit belief-conditioned rating inflation by using persuasion-based probing to examine persuasive arguments.
Outcome: The proposed model fails to evaluate persuasive arguments based on belief alignment . the model fails in three of the three tasks, with belief-conditioned rating inflation accounting for 88% of cases.
Systematic Biases in LLM Simulations of Debates (2024.emnlp-main)

Copied to clipboard

Challenge: Current research suggests that LLM-based agents become increasingly human-like in their performance, sparking interest in using these AI agents as substitutes for human participants in behavioral studies.
Approach: They propose to use LLMs to simulate political debates on topics that are important aspects of people’s day-to-day lives and decision-making processes.
Outcome: The proposed model can simulate political debates on topics that are important aspects of people’s day-to-day lives and decision-making processes.
Biased LLMs can Influence Political Decision-Making (2025.acl-long)

Copied to clipboard

Challenge: Recent studies have found that biased LLMs can influence decisions in areas such as medical classifications and educational hiring.
Approach: They conducted two interactive experiments on partisan bias in large language models while completing tasks with either a biased liberal, biased conservative, or unbiased control model.
Outcome: The results show that prior knowledge of AI is weakly correlated with a reduction of the bias, suggesting that AI education can be crucial for mitigating bias effects.
What Factors Influence LLMs’ Judgments? A Case Study on Question Answering (2024.lrec-main)

Copied to clipboard

Challenge: Existing studies indicate that Large Language Models perform at a level comparable to humans with advantages of speed and cost-effectiveness in different fields.
Approach: They propose to introduce four unexplored factors and a new dimension of question difficulty to provide a more comprehensive understanding of LLMs’ judgments across varying question intricacies.
Outcome: The proposed dimensions of question difficulty and answer quantity provide valuable insights into optimizing LLMs’ performance as judges.

What is GenGO?

GenGO is an NLP powered publication search system. It currenctly indexes 30k+ papers from ACL Anthology, and implements multi-aspect summarization, semantic search, and more!

Information

About
Limitations