Can Many-Shot In-Context Learning Help LLMs as Evaluators? A Preliminary Empirical Study

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.11629v6
• Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2025 06:42:43 GMT
• Title: Can Many-Shot In-Context Learning Help LLMs as Evaluators? A Preliminary Empirical Study
• Authors: Mingyang Song, Mao Zheng, Xuan Luo, Yue Pan,
• Abstract summary: This paper studies the impact of increasing the number of in-context examples on the consistency and quality of the evaluation results. Experimental results show that advanced LLMs, such as GPT-4o, perform better in the many-shot regime than in the zero-shot and few-shot regimes.
• Score: 19.461541208547136
• License:
• Abstract: Utilizing Large Language Models (LLMs) as evaluators to assess the performance of LLMs has garnered attention. However, this kind of evaluation approach is affected by potential biases within LLMs, raising concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the evaluation results of LLMs. To address this problem, we propose and study two many-shot In-Context Learning (ICL) prompt templates to help LLM evaluators mitigate potential biases: Many-Shot with Reference (MSwR) and Many-Shot without Reference (MSoR). Specifically, the former utilizes in-context examples with model-generated evaluation rationales as references, while the latter does not include these references. Using these prompt designs, we investigate the impact of increasing the number of in-context examples on the consistency and quality of the evaluation results. Experimental results show that advanced LLMs, such as GPT-4o, perform better in the many-shot regime than in the zero-shot and few-shot regimes. Furthermore, when using GPT-4o as an evaluator in the many-shot regime, adopting MSwR as the prompt template performs better than MSoR.

Related papers

• Justice or Prejudice? Quantifying Biases in LLM-as-a-Judge [84.34545223897578]
  Despite their excellence in many domains, potential issues are under-explored, undermining their reliability and the scope of their utility. We identify 12 key potential biases and propose a new automated bias quantification framework-CALM- which quantifies and analyzes each type of bias in LLM-as-a-Judge. Our work highlights the need for stakeholders to address these issues and remind users to exercise caution in LLM-as-a-Judge applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T17:53:30Z)
• Finding Blind Spots in Evaluator LLMs with Interpretable Checklists [23.381287828102995]
  We investigate the effectiveness of Large Language Models (LLMs) as evaluators for text generation tasks. We propose FBI, a novel framework designed to examine the proficiency of Evaluator LLMs in assessing four critical abilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-19T10:59:48Z)
• DnA-Eval: Enhancing Large Language Model Evaluation through Decomposition and Aggregation [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)
• 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)
• Large Language Models are Inconsistent and Biased Evaluators [2.136983452580014]
  We show that Large Language Models (LLMs) are biased evaluators as they exhibit familiarity bias and show skewed distributions of ratings. We also found that LLMs are inconsistent evaluators, showing low "inter-sample" agreement and sensitivity to prompt differences that are insignificant to human understanding of text quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-02T20:42:28Z)
• 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)
• InFoBench: Evaluating Instruction Following Ability in Large Language Models [57.27152890085759]
  Decomposed Requirements Following Ratio (DRFR) is a new metric for evaluating Large Language Models' (LLMs) ability to follow instructions. We present InFoBench, a benchmark comprising 500 diverse instructions and 2,250 decomposed questions across multiple constraint categories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-07T23:01:56Z)
• State of What Art? A Call for Multi-Prompt LLM Evaluation [28.307860675006545]
  We comprehensively analyze the brittleness of results obtained via single-prompt evaluations across 6.5M instances. To improve robustness of the analysis, we propose to evaluate LLMs with a set of diverse prompts instead.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-31T22:21:36Z)
• 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)
• LLMRec: Benchmarking Large Language Models on Recommendation Task [54.48899723591296]
  The application of Large Language Models (LLMs) in the recommendation domain has not been thoroughly investigated. We benchmark several popular off-the-shelf LLMs on five recommendation tasks, including rating prediction, sequential recommendation, direct recommendation, explanation generation, and review summarization. The benchmark results indicate that LLMs displayed only moderate proficiency in accuracy-based tasks such as sequential and direct recommendation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-23T16:32:54Z)
• On Learning to Summarize with Large Language Models as References [101.79795027550959]
  Large language models (LLMs) are favored by human annotators over the original reference summaries in commonly used summarization datasets. We study an LLM-as-reference learning setting for smaller text summarization models to investigate whether their performance can be substantially improved.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T16:56:04Z)

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.