PRePair: Pointwise Reasoning Enhance Pairwise Evaluating for Robust Instruction-Following Assessments
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.12319v1
- Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 06:43:04 GMT
- Title: PRePair: Pointwise Reasoning Enhance Pairwise Evaluating for Robust Instruction-Following Assessments
- Authors: Hawon Jeong, ChaeHun Park, Jimin Hong, Jaegul Choo,
- Abstract summary: We show that pointwise evaluators exhibit more robustness against undesirable preferences.
We propose a hybrid method that integrates pointwise reasoning into pairwise evaluation.
- Score: 32.54783419675456
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
- Abstract: Pairwise evaluation using large language models (LLMs) is widely used for evaluating natural language generation (NLG) tasks. However, the reliability of LLMs is often compromised by biases, such as favoring verbosity and authoritative tone. In the study, we focus on the comparison of two LLM-based evaluation approaches, pointwise and pairwise. Our findings demonstrate that pointwise evaluators exhibit more robustness against undesirable preferences. Further analysis reveals that pairwise evaluators can accurately identify the shortcomings of low-quality outputs even when their judgment is incorrect. These results indicate that LLMs are more severely influenced by their bias in a pairwise evaluation setup. To mitigate this, we propose a hybrid method that integrates pointwise reasoning into pairwise evaluation. Experimental results show that our method enhances the robustness of pairwise evaluators against adversarial samples while preserving accuracy on normal samples.
Related papers
- Compare without Despair: Reliable Preference Evaluation with Generation Separability [20.50638483427141]
We introduce a measure, separability, which estimates how suitable a test instance is for pairwise preference evaluation.
For a candidate test instance, separability samples multiple generations from a pair of models, and measures how distinguishable the two sets of generations are.
Experiments show that instances with high separability values yield more consistent preference ratings from both human- and auto-raters.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-07-02T01:37:56Z) - 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) - CASPR: Automated Evaluation Metric for Contrastive Summarization [4.310460539747285]
We propose an automated evaluation metric CASPR to better measure contrast between a pair of summaries.
Our results on a prior dataset CoCoTRIP demonstrate that CASPR can more reliably capture the contrastiveness of the summary pairs compared to the baselines.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-04-23T23:27:29Z) - Evaluating Generative Language Models in Information Extraction as Subjective Question Correction [49.729908337372436]
We propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score.
Inspired by the principles in subjective question correction, we propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score.
Results on three information extraction tasks show that SQC-Score is more preferred by human annotators than the baseline metrics.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-04-04T15:36:53Z) - Aligning with Human Judgement: The Role of Pairwise Preference in Large Language Model Evaluators [48.54465599914978]
Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated promising capabilities in assessing the quality of generated natural language.
LLMs still exhibit biases in evaluation and often struggle to generate coherent evaluations that align with human assessments.
We introduce Pairwise-preference Search (PairS), an uncertainty-guided search method that employs LLMs to conduct pairwise comparisons and efficiently ranks candidate texts.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-25T17:11:28Z) - DCR-Consistency: Divide-Conquer-Reasoning for Consistency Evaluation and
Improvement of Large Language Models [4.953092503184905]
This work proposes DCR, an automated framework for evaluating and improving the consistency of Large Language Models (LLMs) generated texts.
We introduce an automatic metric converter (AMC) that translates the output from DCE into an interpretable numeric score.
Our approach also substantially reduces nearly 90% of output inconsistencies, showing promise for effective hallucination mitigation.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-01-04T08:34:16Z) - Don't Make Your LLM an Evaluation Benchmark Cheater [142.24553056600627]
Large language models(LLMs) have greatly advanced the frontiers of artificial intelligence, attaining remarkable improvement in model capacity.
To assess the model performance, a typical approach is to construct evaluation benchmarks for measuring the ability level of LLMs.
We discuss the potential risk and impact of inappropriately using evaluation benchmarks and misleadingly interpreting the evaluation results.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-03T14:59:54Z) - 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) - Evaluate What You Can't Evaluate: Unassessable Quality for Generated Response [56.25966921370483]
There are challenges in using reference-free evaluators based on large language models.
Reference-free evaluators are more suitable for open-ended examples with different semantics responses.
There are risks in using eference-free evaluators based on LLMs to evaluate the quality of dialogue responses.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-05-24T02:52:48Z) - Scalable Personalised Item Ranking through Parametric Density Estimation [53.44830012414444]
Learning from implicit feedback is challenging because of the difficult nature of the one-class problem.
Most conventional methods use a pairwise ranking approach and negative samplers to cope with the one-class problem.
We propose a learning-to-rank approach, which achieves convergence speed comparable to the pointwise counterpart.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-05-11T03:38:16Z)
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.