Auto Arena of LLMs: Automating LLM Evaluations with Agent Peer-battles and Committee Discussions
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.20267v3
- Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 15:53:49 GMT
- Title: Auto Arena of LLMs: Automating LLM Evaluations with Agent Peer-battles and Committee Discussions
- Authors: Ruochen Zhao, Wenxuan Zhang, Yew Ken Chia, Deli Zhao, Lidong Bing,
- Abstract summary: We propose the Auto-Arena of LLMs, which automates the entire evaluation process with LLM agents.
In our experiment on the 17 newest LLMs, Auto-Arena shows the highest correlation with human preferences.
- Score: 77.83767077859835
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: As LLMs evolve on a daily basis, there is an urgent need for a trustworthy evaluation method that can provide robust evaluation results in a timely fashion. Currently, as static benchmarks are prone to contamination concerns, users tend to trust human voting platforms, such as Chatbot Arena. However, human annotations require extensive manual efforts. To provide an automatic, robust, and trustworthy evaluation framework, we innovatively propose the Auto-Arena of LLMs, which automates the entire evaluation process with LLM agents. Firstly, an examiner LLM devises queries. Then, a pair of candidate LLMs engage in a multi-round peer-battle around the query, during which the LLM's true performance gaps become visible. Finally, a committee of LLM judges collectively discuss and determine the winner, which alleviates bias and promotes fairness. In our extensive experiment on the 17 newest LLMs, Auto-Arena shows the highest correlation with human preferences, providing a promising alternative to human evaluation platforms.
Related papers
- 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) - 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) - Can Large Language Models be Trusted for Evaluation? Scalable
Meta-Evaluation of LLMs as Evaluators via Agent Debate [74.06294042304415]
We propose ScaleEval, an agent-debate-assisted meta-evaluation framework.
We release the code for our framework, which is publicly available on GitHub.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-01-30T07:03:32Z) - 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) - 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) - Large Language Models are Not Yet Human-Level Evaluators for Abstractive
Summarization [66.08074487429477]
We investigate the stability and reliability of large language models (LLMs) as automatic evaluators for abstractive summarization.
We find that while ChatGPT and GPT-4 outperform the commonly used automatic metrics, they are not ready as human replacements.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-05-22T14:58:13Z) - 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.