Who Validates the Validators? Aligning LLM-Assisted Evaluation of LLM Outputs with Human Preferences

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.12272v1
• Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2024 15:45:27 GMT
• Title: Who Validates the Validators? Aligning LLM-Assisted Evaluation of LLM Outputs with Human Preferences
• Authors: Shreya Shankar, J. D. Zamfirescu-Pereira, Björn Hartmann, Aditya G. Parameswaran, Ian Arawjo,
• Abstract summary: EvalGen provides automated assistance to users in generating evaluation criteria and implementing assertions. A qualitative study finds overall support for EvalGen but underscores the subjectivity and iterative process of alignment. We identify a phenomenon we dub emphcriteria drift: users need criteria to grade outputs, but grading outputs helps users define criteria.
• Score: 11.23629471911503
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Due to the cumbersome nature of human evaluation and limitations of code-based evaluation, Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being used to assist humans in evaluating LLM outputs. Yet LLM-generated evaluators simply inherit all the problems of the LLMs they evaluate, requiring further human validation. We present a mixed-initiative approach to ``validate the validators'' -- aligning LLM-generated evaluation functions (be it prompts or code) with human requirements. Our interface, EvalGen, provides automated assistance to users in generating evaluation criteria and implementing assertions. While generating candidate implementations (Python functions, LLM grader prompts), EvalGen asks humans to grade a subset of LLM outputs; this feedback is used to select implementations that better align with user grades. A qualitative study finds overall support for EvalGen but underscores the subjectivity and iterative process of alignment. In particular, we identify a phenomenon we dub \emph{criteria drift}: users need criteria to grade outputs, but grading outputs helps users define criteria. What is more, some criteria appears \emph{dependent} on the specific LLM outputs observed (rather than independent criteria that can be defined \emph{a priori}), raising serious questions for approaches that assume the independence of evaluation from observation of model outputs. We present our interface and implementation details, a comparison of our algorithm with a baseline approach, and implications for the design of future LLM evaluation assistants.

Related papers

• AIME: AI System Optimization via Multiple LLM Evaluators [79.03422337674664]
  AIME is an evaluation protocol that utilizes multiple LLMs that each independently generate an evaluation on separate criteria and then combine them via concatenation. We show AIME outperforming baseline methods in code generation tasks, with up to $62%$ higher error detection rate and up to $16%$ higher success rate than a single LLM evaluation protocol on LeetCodeHard and HumanEval datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-04T04:03:24Z)
• Decompose and Aggregate: A Step-by-Step Interpretable Evaluation Framework [75.81096662788254]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are scalable and economical evaluators. The question of how reliable these evaluators are has emerged as a crucial research question. We propose Decompose and Aggregate, which breaks down the evaluation process into different stages based on pedagogical practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T08:12:30Z)
• HD-Eval: Aligning Large Language Model Evaluators Through Hierarchical Criteria Decomposition [92.17397504834825]
  HD-Eval is a framework that iteratively aligns large language models evaluators with human preference. HD-Eval inherits the essence from the evaluation mindset of human experts and enhances the alignment of LLM-based evaluators. Extensive experiments on three evaluation domains demonstrate the superiority of HD-Eval in further aligning state-of-the-art evaluators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-24T08:01:32Z)
• 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)
• Benchmarking Generation and Evaluation Capabilities of Large Language Models for Instruction Controllable Summarization [132.25202059478065]
  We benchmark large language models (LLMs) on instruction controllable text summarization. Our study reveals that instruction controllable text summarization remains a challenging task for LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T18:25:26Z)
• Evaluating Large Language Models at Evaluating Instruction Following [54.49567482594617]
  We introduce a challenging meta-evaluation benchmark, LLMBar, designed to test the ability of an LLM evaluator in discerning instruction-following outputs. We discover that different evaluators exhibit distinct performance on LLMBar and even the highest-scoring ones have substantial room for improvement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-11T16:38:11Z)
• EvalLM: Interactive Evaluation of Large Language Model Prompts on User-Defined Criteria [43.944632774725484]
  We present EvalLM, an interactive system for iteratively refining prompts by evaluating multiple outputs on user-defined criteria. By describing criteria in natural language, users can employ the system's LLM-based evaluator to get an overview of where prompts excel or fail. A comparative study showed that EvalLM, when compared to manual evaluation, helped participants compose more diverse criteria, examine twice as many outputs, and reach satisfactory prompts with 59% fewer revisions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-24T13:19:38Z)
• Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations? [80.81532239566992]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional performance on unseen tasks when only the task instructions are provided. We show that the result of LLM evaluation is consistent with the results obtained by expert human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-03T07:28:50Z)

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.