Replacing Judges with Juries: Evaluating LLM Generations with a Panel of Diverse Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.18796v2
• Date: Wed, 1 May 2024 15:37:11 GMT
• Title: Replacing Judges with Juries: Evaluating LLM Generations with a Panel of Diverse Models
• Authors: Pat Verga, Sebastian Hofstatter, Sophia Althammer, Yixuan Su, Aleksandra Piktus, Arkady Arkhangorodsky, Minjie Xu, Naomi White, Patrick Lewis,
• Abstract summary: We propose to evaluate models using a Panel of LLm evaluators (PoLL) We find that using a PoLL composed of a larger number of smaller models outperforms a single large judge, exhibits less intra-model bias due to its composition of disjoint model families, and does so while being over seven times less expensive.
• Score: 56.02275285521847
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) have become more advanced, they have outpaced our abilities to accurately evaluate their quality. Not only is finding data to adequately probe particular model properties difficult, but evaluating the correctness of a model's freeform generation alone is a challenge. To address this, many evaluations now rely on using LLMs themselves as judges to score the quality of outputs from other LLMs. Evaluations most commonly use a single large model like GPT4. While this method has grown in popularity, it is costly, has been shown to introduce intramodel bias, and in this work, we find that very large models are often unnecessary. We propose instead to evaluate models using a Panel of LLm evaluators (PoLL). Across three distinct judge settings and spanning six different datasets, we find that using a PoLL composed of a larger number of smaller models outperforms a single large judge, exhibits less intra-model bias due to its composition of disjoint model families, and does so while being over seven times less expensive.

Related papers

• Limits to scalable evaluation at the frontier: LLM as Judge won't beat twice the data [14.95829896035971]
  An emerging family of debiasing tools promises to fix issues by using a few high quality labels to debias a large number of model judgments. Our main result shows that when the judge is no more accurate than the evaluated model, no debiasing method can decrease the required amount of ground truth labels by more than half.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-17T08:49:42Z)
• What Matters for Model Merging at Scale? [94.26607564817786]
  Model merging aims to combine multiple expert models into a more capable single model. Previous studies have primarily focused on merging a few small models. This study systematically evaluates the utility of model merging at scale.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-04T17:17:19Z)
• MJ-Bench: Is Your Multimodal Reward Model Really a Good Judge for Text-to-Image Generation? [59.7772329962047]
  We introduce MJ-Bench, a novel benchmark which incorporates a comprehensive preference dataset to evaluate multimodal judges. Specifically, we evaluate a large variety of multimodal judges including smaller-sized CLIP-based scoring models, open-source VLMs, and close-source VLMs. Experiments reveal that close-source VLMs generally provide better feedback, with GPT-4o outperforming other judges in average.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-05T20:03:16Z)
• 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)
• Dataless Knowledge Fusion by Merging Weights of Language Models [51.8162883997512]
  Fine-tuning pre-trained language models has become the prevalent paradigm for building downstream NLP models. This creates a barrier to fusing knowledge across individual models to yield a better single model. We propose a dataless knowledge fusion method that merges models in their parameter space.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-19T20:46:43Z)
• Investigating Ensemble Methods for Model Robustness Improvement of Text Classifiers [66.36045164286854]
  We analyze a set of existing bias features and demonstrate there is no single model that works best for all the cases. By choosing an appropriate bias model, we can obtain a better robustness result than baselines with a more sophisticated model design.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-28T17:52:10Z)
• Evaluation of HTR models without Ground Truth Material [2.4792948967354236]
  evaluation of Handwritten Text Recognition models during their development is straightforward. But the evaluation process becomes tricky as soon as we switch from development to application. We show that lexicon-based evaluation can compete with lexicon-based methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-17T01:26:09Z)
• When Ensembling Smaller Models is More Efficient than Single Large Models [52.38997176317532]
  We show that ensembles can outperform single models with both higher accuracy and requiring fewer total FLOPs to compute. This presents an interesting observation that output diversity in ensembling can often be more efficient than training larger models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-01T18:56:18Z)

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.