Search arXivSearch

arXiv subjects

Mahnoosh Alizadeh

Publications and source records attributed to Mahnoosh Alizadeh.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

REALM: Reliable Expertise-Aware Language Model Fine-Tuning from Noisy Annotations

Supervised fine-tuning of large language models relies on human-annotated data, yet annotation pipelines routinely involve multiple crowdworkers of heterogeneous expertise. Standard practice aggregates labels via majority vote or simple averaging, discarding annotator identity and causing the model to absorb the errors of unreliable annotators into its parameters. We propose REALM, which jointly learns the model parameters and a scalar expertise value for each annotator, entirely unsupervised and requiring nothing beyond annotator identity. The key idea is to model each observed label as a mixture between the model's prediction and a uniform random guess, weighted by the annotator's learned expertise. REALM applies to any task with a fixed label set, and extends to multiple tasks via a learned expertise matrix. On four text-classification datasets with \emph{real} crowdsourced annotations, REALM is the best method in all $12$ configurations of the three heterogeneous-annotator datasets, improving on the strongest applicable baseline, including majority vote and Dawid--Skene aggregation, by $+2.9$ points on average. On five question answering benchmarks with simulated noisy labels, it outperforms naive noisy fine-tuning in $152$ of $162$ configurations, by $+5.0$ points on average, with gains that grow with model capacity. The learned expertise additionally recovers annotator reliability without ever observing it. Our code is available at https://github.com/sajjad-ucsb/REALM

cs.LG

Can MLLMs Critique Like Humans? Evaluating Open-Ended Aesthetic Reasoning in Multimodal Large Language Models

Open-ended aesthetic critique is a challenge for multimodal large language models (MLLMs): it has no single correct answer, and most aesthetic evaluation measures models against numeric scores rather than the written critiques people actually give. We ask whether MLLM critiques are close to human ones, scoring eight open-weight MLLMs from $7$B to $397$B, plus GPT-5.5, against multiple ranked human critiques for each of $1{,}227$ \texttt{r/photocritique} posts under eight prompt conditions. Reference-based similarity gives a misleading picture. In absolute terms the stricter lexical and learned metrics align only weakly with human critiques while a coarse embedding cosine reports broad topical overlap, yet requesting shorter critiques raises those scores and withholding the image barely changes them: the similarity reflects length, the post text, and a stable critiquing style more than image-specific observation. An LLM judge sharpens the question rather than settling it: in the primary condition all four judges prefer the frontier models' critiques to the human ones, but on the $7$--$8$B models they diverge wildly, from $9\%$ to $81\%$ preference on identical pairs. Asked instead how similar each pair is in substance, those judges and two human annotators agree, rating every model between $1.81$ and $2.59$ on a $1$--$5$ scale, close to ``mostly different''. Behaviorally, the models diverge in ways the scores do not surface: they cover nearly every aesthetic aspect where humans are selective and repeat themselves across critiques of one photo, even when prompted to write at human length. We argue that reference-based similarity rewards a fluent, comprehensive critique style rather than the selectivity and specificity of human critique.

cs.CL