arXiv:2603.04409cs.CLcs.AI2026-03被引 2

首个兼顾人口统计特征的LLM人类偏好评估框架,揭示模型表现因用户年龄差异巨大。

Unpacking Human Preference for LLMs: Demographically Aware Evaluation with the HUMAINE Framework

  • 构建多维度、分人群的评估框架,覆盖22个群体的2.3万次真实对话
  • 谷歌Gemini 2.5 Pro以95.6%概率排名第一,但不同年龄组排名差异显著
  • 信任与安全等抽象维度判断一致性仅35%,远低于整体评分的90%

大语言模型评估面临严峻挑战:技术基准缺乏现实相关性,现有真人偏好评估存在样本不具代表性、评估深度不足和单一指标简化等问题。为此,我们提出HUMAINE框架,实现多维、人口统计意识的人机交互评估。我们收集了来自美国和英国23,404名参与者、分层覆盖22个人口统计群体的多轮自然对话数据,评估28个前沿模型在五个以人为中心维度上的表现。采用分层贝叶斯布拉德利-特瑞-戴维森(BTD)模型,并基于人口普查数据进行后分层校准。分析揭示三个关键发现:(1) 明确建立性能层级, exttt{google/gemini-2.5-pro}总体排名第一,其为最优模型的后验概率高达95.6%;(2) 发现显著偏好异质性,用户年龄成为分歧的主要人口轴线,同一模型在不同年龄组中感知排名可大幅变化,暴露了非代表性样本通常掩盖的泛化失败;(3) 量化评估维度间判别力的巨大差异,如 extit{信任、伦理与安全}等模糊维度的并列率高达65%,远高于 extit{总体胜者}维度的10%。本研究强调需采用更全面、人口意识更强的视角进行大模型评估。我们公开发布完整数据集、交互式排行榜及开源框架。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

The evaluation of large language models faces significant challenges. Technical benchmarks often lack real-world relevance, while existing human preference evaluations suffer from unrepresentative sampling, superficial assessment depth, and single-metric reductionism. To address these issues, we introduce HUMAINE, a framework for multidimensional, demographically aware measurement of human-AI interaction. We collected multi-turn, naturalistic conversations from 23,404 participants that were stratified across 22 demographic groups, both in the US and UK, to evaluate 28 state-of-the-art models across five human-centric dimensions. We use a hierarchical Bayesian Bradley-Terry-Davidson (BTD) model, with post-stratification to census data, and our analysis reveals three key insights. \textbf{(1)} We establish a clear performance hierarchy where \texttt{google/gemini-2.5-pro} ranks first overall, with a 95.6\% posterior probability of being the top-ranked model. \textbf{(2)} We uncover significant preference heterogeneity, with user age emerging as the primary demographic axis of disagreement; a model's perceived rank can shift substantially across age groups, exposing failures in generalisation that unrepresentative samples typically mask. \textbf{(3)} We quantify the vast difference in discriminative power across evaluation dimensions, with ambiguous qualities like \textit{Trust, Ethics \& Safety} showing a 65\% tie rate, in stark contrast to the decisive 10\% tie rate for \textit{Overall Winner}. Our work emphasises the need for a more multidimensional, demographically aware perspective in LLM evaluation. We release our complete dataset, interactive leaderboard, and open-source framework.

LLM评估人类偏好人口统计多维评测

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。