Aligning Model Evaluations with Human Preferences: Mitigating Token Count Bias in Language Model Assessments

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.12847v1
• Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2024 09:26:40 GMT
• Title: Aligning Model Evaluations with Human Preferences: Mitigating Token Count Bias in Language Model Assessments
• Authors: Roland Daynauth, Jason Mars,
• Abstract summary: This follow-up paper explores methods to align Large Language Models evaluator preferences with human evaluations. We employed Bayesian statistics and a t-test to quantify this bias and developed a recalibration procedure to adjust the GPTScorer. Our findings significantly improve aligning the recalibrated LLM evaluator with human evaluations across multiple use cases.
• Score: 2.1370543868467275
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The SLAM paper demonstrated that on-device Small Language Models (SLMs) are a viable and cost-effective alternative to API-based Large Language Models (LLMs), such as OpenAI's GPT-4, offering comparable performance and stability. However, SLAM also identified discrepancies between human preferences and traditional auto-evaluators. This follow-up paper explores methods to align LLM evaluator preferences with human evaluations by addressing biases, particularly toward higher token counts. We employed Bayesian statistics and a t-test to quantify this bias and developed a recalibration procedure to adjust the GPTScorer. Our findings significantly improve aligning the recalibrated LLM evaluator with human evaluations across multiple use cases. For instance, spearman's ranking correlation score in the Recommendation use case improved from -27.27 to 44.55. These results highlight the importance of accounting for biases in automated evaluations to ensure fair and accurate model assessments. The recalibration process enhances the reliability of automated evaluators, leading to better AI models that align with human values and expectations. This study provides a robust methodology for future research into bias correction and emphasizes the feasibility and benefits of developing human-aligned AI evaluation systems.

Related papers

• CalibraEval: Calibrating Prediction Distribution to Mitigate Selection Bias in LLMs-as-Judges [21.580762639442913]
  We introduce CalibraEval, a novel label-free method for mitigating selection bias during inference. CalibraEval reformulates debiasing as an optimization task aimed at adjusting observed prediction distributions to align with unbiased prediction distributions. We show that CalibraEval effectively mitigates selection bias and improves performance compared to existing debiasing methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-20T13:47:39Z)
• Poor-Supervised Evaluation for SuperLLM via Mutual Consistency [20.138831477848615]
  We propose the PoEM framework to conduct evaluation without accurate labels. We first prove that the capability of a model can be equivalently assessed by the consistency between it and certain reference model. To alleviate the insufficiencies of the conditions in reality, we introduce an algorithm that treats humans (when available) and the models under evaluation as reference models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-25T06:49:03Z)
• Self-Taught Evaluators [77.92610887220594]
  We present an approach that aims to im-proves without human annotations, using synthetic training data only. Our Self-Taught Evaluator can improve a strong LLM from 75.4 to 88.3 on RewardBench.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-05T17:57:02Z)
• 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)
• QualEval: Qualitative Evaluation for Model Improvement [82.73561470966658]
  We propose QualEval, which augments quantitative scalar metrics with automated qualitative evaluation as a vehicle for model improvement. QualEval uses a powerful LLM reasoner and our novel flexible linear programming solver to generate human-readable insights. We demonstrate that leveraging its insights, for example, improves the absolute performance of the Llama 2 model by up to 15% points relative.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-06T00:21:44Z)
• 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)
• Calibrating LLM-Based Evaluator [92.17397504834825]
  We propose AutoCalibrate, a multi-stage, gradient-free approach to calibrate and align an LLM-based evaluator toward human preference. Instead of explicitly modeling human preferences, we first implicitly encompass them within a set of human labels. Our experiments on multiple text quality evaluation datasets illustrate a significant improvement in correlation with expert evaluation through calibration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-23T08:46:11Z)
• From Static Benchmarks to Adaptive Testing: Psychometrics in AI Evaluation [60.14902811624433]
  We discuss a paradigm shift from static evaluation methods to adaptive testing. This involves estimating the characteristics and value of each test item in the benchmark and dynamically adjusting items in real-time. We analyze the current approaches, advantages, and underlying reasons for adopting psychometrics in AI evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-18T09:54:33Z)

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.