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

• Evaluating Scoring Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge [8.751901240110888]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are employed as evaluators for complex tasks.<n>There are various biases within LLM-as-a-Judge, which adversely affect the fairness and reliability of judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-27T15:25:23Z)
• Pairwise or Pointwise? Evaluating Feedback Protocols for Bias in LLM-Based Evaluation [57.380464382910375]
  We show that the choice of feedback protocol can significantly affect evaluation reliability and induce systematic biases. In particular, we show that pairwise evaluation protocols are more vulnerable to distracted evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-20T19:05:59Z)
• Rethinking Relation Extraction: Beyond Shortcuts to Generalization with a Debiased Benchmark [53.876493664396506]
  Benchmarks are crucial for evaluating machine learning algorithm performance, facilitating comparison and identifying superior solutions. This paper addresses the issue of entity bias in relation extraction tasks, where models tend to rely on entity mentions rather than context. We propose a debiased relation extraction benchmark DREB that breaks the pseudo-correlation between entity mentions and relation types through entity replacement. To establish a new baseline on DREB, we introduce MixDebias, a debiasing method combining data-level and model training-level techniques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-02T17:01:06Z)
• Towards Understanding the Robustness of LLM-based Evaluations under Perturbations [9.944512689015998]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) can serve as automatic evaluators for non-standardized metrics in summarization and dialog-based tasks. We conduct experiments across multiple prompting strategies to examine how LLMs fare as quality evaluators when compared with human judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-12T13:31:58Z)
• Language Model Preference Evaluation with Multiple Weak Evaluators [78.53743237977677]
  GED (Preference Graph Ensemble and Denoise) is a novel approach that leverages multiple model-based evaluators to construct preference graphs. We show that GED outperforms baseline methods in model ranking, response selection, and model alignment tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T01:57:25Z)
• 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)
• Fairer Preferences Elicit Improved Human-Aligned Large Language Model Judgments [41.25558612970942]
  We show that large language models (LLMs) exhibit preference biases and worrying sensitivity to prompt designs. Motivated by this phenomenon, we propose an automatic Zero-shot Evaluation-oriented Prompt Optimization framework, ZEPO.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-17T09:48:53Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• LLMs as Factual Reasoners: Insights from Existing Benchmarks and Beyond [135.8013388183257]
  We propose a new protocol for inconsistency detection benchmark creation and implement it in a 10-domain benchmark called SummEdits. Most LLMs struggle on SummEdits, with performance close to random chance. The best-performing model, GPT-4, is still 8% below estimated human performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T21:50:06Z)

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.