PRD: Peer Rank and Discussion Improve Large Language Model based Evaluations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2307.02762v2
• Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 04:34:03 GMT
• Title: PRD: Peer Rank and Discussion Improve Large Language Model based Evaluations
• Authors: Ruosen Li, Teerth Patel, Xinya Du,
• Abstract summary: Modern large language models (LLMs) are hard to evaluate and compare automatically. We propose a peer rank (PR) algorithm that takes into account each peer LLM's pairwise preferences of all answer pairs. We find that our approaches achieve higher accuracy and align better with human judgments.
• Score: 10.709365940160685
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Nowadays, the quality of responses generated by different modern large language models (LLMs) is hard to evaluate and compare automatically. Recent studies suggest and predominantly use LLMs for reference-free evaluation of open-ended question answering. More specifically, they use the recognized "strongest" LLM as the evaluator, which conducts pairwise comparisons of candidate models' answers and provides a ranking score. However, this intuitive method has multiple problems, such as bringing in self-enhancement (favoring its own answers) and positional bias. We draw insights and lessons from the educational domain (Cho & MacArthur, 2011; Walsh, 2014) to improve LLM-based evaluations. Specifically, we propose (1) the peer rank (PR) algorithm that takes into account each peer LLM's pairwise preferences of all answer pairs, and outputs a final ranking of models; and (2) peer discussion (PD), where we prompt two LLMs to discuss and try to reach a mutual agreement on the preferences of two answers. We conduct experiments on two benchmark datasets. We find that our approaches achieve higher accuracy and align better with human judgments. Interestingly, PR can induce a relatively accurate self-ranking of models under the anonymous setting, where each model's name is unrevealed. Our work provides space to explore evaluating models that are hard to compare for humans.

Related papers

• CompassJudger-1: All-in-one Judge Model Helps Model Evaluation and Evolution [74.41064280094064]
  textbfJudger-1 is the first open-source textbfall-in-one judge LLM. CompassJudger-1 is a general-purpose LLM that demonstrates remarkable versatility. textbfJudgerBench is a new benchmark that encompasses various subjective evaluation tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T17:56:51Z)
• Diverging Preferences: When do Annotators Disagree and do Models Know? [92.24651142187989]
  We develop a taxonomy of disagreement sources spanning 10 categories across four high-level classes. We find that the majority of disagreements are in opposition with standard reward modeling approaches. We develop methods for identifying diverging preferences to mitigate their influence on evaluation and training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T17:32:22Z)
• Language Model Council: Democratically Benchmarking Foundation Models on Highly Subjective Tasks [3.58262772907022]
  We introduce the Language Model Council (LMC), where a group of LLMs collaborate to create tests, respond to them, and evaluate each other's responses to produce a ranking. In a detailed case study on emotional intelligence, we deploy a council of 20 recent LLMs to rank each other on open-ended responses to interpersonal conflicts. Our results show that the LMC produces rankings that are more separable and more robust, and through a user study, we show that they are more consistent with human evaluations than any individual LLM judge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-12T19:05:43Z)
• Auto-Arena: Automating LLM Evaluations with Agent Peer Battles and Committee Discussions [77.66677127535222]
  Auto-Arena is an innovative framework that automates the entire evaluation process using LLM-powered agents. In our experiments, Auto-Arena shows a 92.14% correlation with human preferences, surpassing all previous expert-annotated benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-30T17:19:19Z)
• Evaluating Generative Language Models in Information Extraction as Subjective Question Correction [49.729908337372436]
  We propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Inspired by the principles in subjective question correction, we propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Results on three information extraction tasks show that SQC-Score is more preferred by human annotators than the baseline metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-04T15:36:53Z)
• Ranking Large Language Models without Ground Truth [24.751931637152524]
  Evaluation and ranking of large language models (LLMs) has become an important problem with the proliferation of these models. We provide a novel perspective where, given a dataset of prompts, we rank them without access to any ground truth or reference responses. Applying this idea repeatedly, we propose two methods to rank LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-21T00:49:43Z)
• PiCO: Peer Review in LLMs based on the Consistency Optimization [19.130941716491716]
  We use peer-review mechanisms to measure large language models (LLMs) automatically. We formalize it as a constrained optimization problem, intending to maximize the consistency of each LLM's capabilities and scores. We propose three metrics called PEN, CIN, and LIS to evaluate the gap in aligning human rankings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-02T18:49:26Z)
• PRE: A Peer Review Based Large Language Model Evaluator [14.585292530642603]
  Existing paradigms rely on either human annotators or model-based evaluators to evaluate the performance of LLMs. We propose a novel framework that can automatically evaluate LLMs through a peer-review process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-28T12:33:14Z)
• LLM Comparative Assessment: Zero-shot NLG Evaluation through Pairwise Comparisons using Large Language Models [55.60306377044225]
  Large language models (LLMs) have enabled impressive zero-shot capabilities across various natural language tasks. This paper explores two options for exploiting the emergent abilities of LLMs for zero-shot NLG assessment. For moderate-sized open-source LLMs, such as FlanT5 and Llama2-chat, comparative assessment is superior to prompt scoring.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-15T22:02:12Z)
• Style Over Substance: Evaluation Biases for Large Language Models [17.13064447978519]
  This study investigates the behavior of crowd-sourced and expert annotators, as well as large language models (LLMs) Our findings reveal a concerning bias in the evaluation process, as answers with factual errors are rated more favorably than answers that are too short or contained grammatical errors. We propose independently evaluating machine-generated text across multiple dimensions, rather than merging all the evaluation aspects into a single score.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-06T14:42:01Z)
• Benchmarking Large Language Models for News Summarization [79.37850439866938]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise for automatic summarization but the reasons behind their successes are poorly understood. We find instruction tuning, and not model size, is the key to the LLM's zero-shot summarization capability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-31T18:46:19Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.