Can Many-Shot In-Context Learning Help Long-Context LLM Judges? See More, Judge Better!

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.11629v3
• Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2024 13:31:24 GMT
• Title: Can Many-Shot In-Context Learning Help Long-Context LLM Judges? See More, Judge Better!
• Authors: Mingyang Song, Mao Zheng, Xuan Luo,
• Abstract summary: We propose and study two versions of many-shot in-context prompts for helping GPT-4o-as-a-Judge in single answer grading. Based on the designed prompts, we investigate the impact of scaling the number of in-context examples on the consistency and quality of the judgment results. We reveal the symbol bias hidden in the pairwise comparison of GPT-4o-as-a-Judge and propose a simple yet effective approach to mitigate it.
• Score: 14.906150451947443
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) as judges for judging the performance of LLMs has recently garnered attention. However, this type of approach is affected by the potential biases in LLMs, raising concerns about the reliability of the evaluation results. To mitigate this issue, we propose and study two versions of many-shot in-context prompts, which rely on two existing settings of many-shot ICL for helping GPT-4o-as-a-Judge in single answer grading to mitigate the potential biases in LLMs, Reinforced ICL and Unsupervised ICL. Concretely, the former utilizes in-context examples with model-generated rationales, and the latter without. Based on the designed prompts, we investigate the impact of scaling the number of in-context examples on the consistency and quality of the judgment results. Furthermore, we reveal the symbol bias hidden in the pairwise comparison of GPT-4o-as-a-Judge and propose a simple yet effective approach to mitigate it. Experimental results show that advanced long-context LLMs, such as GPT-4o, perform better in the many-shot regime than in the zero-shot regime. Meanwhile, the experimental results further verify the effectiveness of the symbol bias mitigation approach.

Related papers

• Are Large Language Models Strategic Decision Makers? A Study of Performance and Bias in Two-Player Non-Zero-Sum Games [56.70628673595041]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have been increasingly used in real-world settings, yet their strategic abilities remain largely unexplored. We investigate LLMs' behaviour in strategic games, Stag Hunt and Prisoner Dilemma, analyzing performance variations under different settings and prompts. Our results show that the tested state-of-the-art LLMs exhibit at least one of the following systematic biases: (1) positional bias, (2) payoff bias, or (3) behavioural bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-05T12:30:02Z)
• UBENCH: Benchmarking Uncertainty in Large Language Models with Multiple Choice Questions [10.28688988951815]
  UBENCH is a benchmark for evaluating large language models. It includes 3,978 multiple-choice questions covering knowledge, language, understanding, and reasoning abilities. We also evaluate the reliability of 15 popular LLMs, finding GLM4 to be the most outstanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-18T16:50:38Z)
• Language Models can Evaluate Themselves via Probability Discrepancy [38.54454263880133]
  We propose a new self-evaluation method ProbDiff for assessing the efficacy of various Large Language Models (LLMs) It uniquely utilizes the LLMs being tested to compute the probability discrepancy between the initial response and its revised versions. Our findings reveal that ProbDiff achieves results on par with those obtained from evaluations based on GPT-4.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-17T03:50:28Z)
• Many-Shot In-Context Learning [58.395589302800566]
  Large language models (LLMs) excel at few-shot in-context learning (ICL) We observe significant performance gains across a wide variety of generative and discriminative tasks. We find that both Reinforced and Unsupervised ICL can be quite effective in the many-shot regime.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-17T02:49:26Z)
• Reinforcement Learning from Multi-role Debates as Feedback for Bias Mitigation in LLMs [6.090496490133132]
  We find that involving LLMs in role-playing scenario boosts their ability to recognize and mitigate biases. We propose Reinforcement Learning from Multi-role Debates as Feedback (RLDF), a novel approach for bias mitigation replacing human feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-15T22:18:50Z)
• Understanding Biases in ChatGPT-based Recommender Systems: Provider Fairness, Temporal Stability, and Recency [9.882829614199453]
  This paper explores the biases in ChatGPT-based recommender systems, focusing on provider fairness (item-side fairness) In the first experiment, we assess seven distinct prompt scenarios on top-K recommendation accuracy and fairness. Embedding fairness into system roles, such as "act as a fair recommender," proved more effective than fairness directives within prompts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-19T08:09:20Z)
• Misconfidence-based Demonstration Selection for LLM In-Context Learning [0.0]
  In-context learning with large language models (LLMs) excels at adapting to various tasks rapidly. Current approaches to this problem either rely on hard-to-acquire external supervision or require frequent interactions with LLMs. We propose a new method called In-Context Reflection (ICR) to overcome these challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-12T00:11:24Z)
• NoMIRACL: Knowing When You Don't Know for Robust Multilingual Retrieval-Augmented Generation [92.5132418788568]
  Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) grounds large language model (LLM) output by leveraging external knowledge sources to reduce factual hallucinations. NoMIRACL is a human-annotated dataset for evaluating LLM robustness in RAG across 18 typologically diverse languages. We measure robustness using two metrics: (i) hallucination rate, measuring model tendency to hallucinate an answer, when the answer is not present in passages in the non-relevant subset, and (ii) error rate, measuring model inaccuracy to recognize relevant passages in the relevant subset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-18T17:18:04Z)
• Beyond Task Performance: Evaluating and Reducing the Flaws of Large Multimodal Models with In-Context Learning [105.77733287326308]
  We evaluate 10 recent open-source LMMs from 3B up to 80B parameter scale, on 5 different axes; hallucinations, abstention, compositionality, explainability and instruction following. We explore the training-free in-context learning (ICL) as a solution, and study how it affects these limitations. Based on our ICL study, (3) we push ICL further and propose new multimodal ICL variants such as; Multitask-ICL, Chain-of-Hindsight-ICL, and Self-Correcting-ICL.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-01T12:02:59Z)
• 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)
• Contrastive Learning for Debiased Candidate Generation in Large-Scale Recommender Systems [84.3996727203154]
  We show that a popular choice of contrastive loss is equivalent to reducing the exposure bias via inverse propensity weighting. We further improve upon CLRec and propose Multi-CLRec, for accurate multi-intention aware bias reduction. Our methods have been successfully deployed in Taobao, where at least four-month online A/B tests and offline analyses demonstrate its substantial improvements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-20T08:15:23Z)

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.