mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

HumBEL: A Human-in-the-Loop Approach for Evaluating Demographic Factors of Language Models in Human-Machine Conversations

arXiv 2305.14195 ↗First posted 23 May 2023cs.CL cs.AIcited by 6

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

While demographic factors like age and gender change the way people talk, and in particular, the way people talk to machines, there is little investigation into how large pre-trained language models (LMs) can adapt to these changes. To remedy this gap, we consider how demographic factors in LM language skills can be measured to determine compatibility with a target demographic. We suggest clinical techniques from Speech Language Pathology, which has norms for acquisition of language skills in humans. We conduct evaluation with a domain expert (i.e., a clinically licensed speech language pathologist), and also propose automated techniques to complement clinical evaluation at scale. Empirically, we focus on age, finding LM capability varies widely depending on task: GPT-3.5 mimics the ability of humans ranging from age 6-15 at tasks requiring inference, and simultaneously, outperforms a typical 21 year old at memorization. GPT-3.5 also has trouble with social language use, exhibiting less than 50% of the tested pragmatic skills. Findings affirm the importance of considering demographic alignment and conversational goals when using LMs as public-facing tools. Code, data, and a package will be available.

Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 55 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 May 2023.

Builds on

17 of 55 references.

References · 17

  1. 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,512
  2. 2023Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behaviorcited by 3,568
  3. 2014CIDEr: Consensus-based Image Description Evaluationcited by 2,046
  4. 2022Rethinking the Role of Demonstrations: What Makes In-Context Learning Work?cited by 1,434
  5. 2016Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddingscited by 1,312
  6. 2020BLEURT: Learning Robust Metrics for Text Generationcited by 1,203
  7. 2016Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biasescited by 901
  8. 2017The NarrativeQA Reading Comprehension Challengecited by 597
  9. 2019Automatic Detection of Generated Text is Easiest when Humans are Fooledcited by 261
  10. 2019Negated and Misprimed Probes for Pretrained Language Models: Birds Can Talk, But Cannot Flycited by 243
  11. 2020Experience Grounds Languagecited by 242
  12. 2023What In-Context Learning "Learns" In-Context: Disentangling Task Recognition and Task Learningcited by 152
5 more
  1. 2021Is GPT-3 Text Indistinguishable from Human Text? Scarecrow: A Framework for Scrutinizing Machine Textcited by 89
  2. 2020Contextualized Word Embeddings Encode Aspects of Human-Like Word Sense Knowledgecited by 18
  3. 2021COSMic: A Coherence-Aware Generation Metric for Image Descriptionscited by 9
  4. 2021Comprehension Based Question Answering using Bloom's Taxonomycited by 7
  5. 2022LEATHER: A Framework for Learning to Generate Human-like Text in Dialoguecited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 5.

6 papers.