Polyrating: A Cost-Effective and Bias-Aware Rating System for LLM Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.00696v3
• Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2025 12:21:13 GMT
• Title: Polyrating: A Cost-Effective and Bias-Aware Rating System for LLM Evaluation
• Authors: Jasper Dekoninck, Maximilian Baader, Martin Vechev,
• Abstract summary: Polyrating is an expressive and flexible rating system based on a maximum posteriori estimation. It can detect and quantify biases affecting human preferences, ensuring fairer model comparisons. It can reduce the cost of human evaluations by up to $41%$ for new models and up to $77%$ for new tasks.
• Score: 5.653106385738822
• License:
• Abstract: Rating-based human evaluation has become an essential tool to accurately evaluate the impressive performance of large language models (LLMs). However, current rating systems suffer from several important limitations: first, they fail to account for biases that significantly influence evaluation results, second, they require large and expensive preference datasets to obtain accurate ratings, and third, they do not facilitate meaningful comparisons of model ratings across different tasks. To address these issues, we introduce Polyrating, an expressive and flexible rating system based on maximum a posteriori estimation that enables a more nuanced and thorough analysis of model performance at lower costs. Polyrating can detect and quantify biases affecting human preferences, ensuring fairer model comparisons. Further, Polyrating can reduce the cost of human evaluations by up to $41\%$ for new models and up to $77\%$ for new tasks by leveraging existing benchmark scores. Lastly, Polyrating enables direct comparisons of ratings across different tasks, providing a comprehensive understanding of an LLMs' strengths, weaknesses, and relative performance across different applications.

Related papers

• HREF: Human Response-Guided Evaluation of Instruction Following in Language Models [61.273153125847166]
  We develop a new evaluation benchmark, Human Response-Guided Evaluation of Instruction Following (HREF) In addition to providing reliable evaluation, HREF emphasizes individual task performance and is free from contamination. We study the impact of key design choices in HREF, including the size of the evaluation set, the judge model, the baseline model, and the prompt template.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-20T03:26:47Z)
• Optimizing Alignment with Less: Leveraging Data Augmentation for Personalized Evaluation [2.933641361932625]
  We present a data augmentation technique to select a more effective sample from limited data in order to align an open LLM with human preference. Our work achieves approximately 7% improvements in Pearson correlation with a reference judge over the baseline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-10T11:40:11Z)
• Auto-Evaluation with Few Labels through Post-hoc Regression [4.813376208491175]
  Prediction Powered Inference (PPI) framework provides a way of leveraging statistical power of automatic evaluation and a small pool of labelled data. We present two new PPI-based techniques that leverage robust regressors to produce even lower variance estimators in the few-label regime.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-19T17:17:46Z)
• Active Evaluation Acquisition for Efficient LLM Benchmarking [18.85604491151409]
  We investigate strategies to improve evaluation efficiency by selecting a subset of examples from each benchmark using a learned policy. Our approach models the dependencies across test examples, allowing accurate prediction of the evaluation outcomes for the remaining examples. Empirical results demonstrate that our approach significantly reduces the number of evaluation prompts required.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-08T12:08:46Z)
• Aligning Model Evaluations with Human Preferences: Mitigating Token Count Bias in Language Model Assessments [2.1370543868467275]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-05T09:26:40Z)
• LLMs instead of Human Judges? A Large Scale Empirical Study across 20 NLP Evaluation Tasks [106.09361690937618]
  There is an increasing trend towards evaluating NLP models with LLMs instead of human judgments. We provide JUDGE-BENCH, a collection of 20 NLP datasets with human annotations covering a broad range of evaluated properties and types of data. We evaluate 11 current LLMs, covering both open-weight and proprietary models, for their ability to replicate the annotations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-26T14:56:13Z)
• F-Eval: Assessing Fundamental Abilities with Refined Evaluation Methods [102.98899881389211]
  We propose F-Eval, a bilingual evaluation benchmark to evaluate the fundamental abilities, including expression, commonsense and logic. For reference-free subjective tasks, we devise new evaluation methods, serving as alternatives to scoring by API models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-26T13:55:32Z)
• 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)
• Style Over Substance: Evaluation Biases for Large Language Models [17.13064447978519]
  This study investigates the behavior of crowd-sourced and expert annotators, as well as large language models (LLMs) Our findings reveal a concerning bias in the evaluation process, as answers with factual errors are rated more favorably than answers that are too short or contained grammatical errors. We propose independently evaluating machine-generated text across multiple dimensions, rather than merging all the evaluation aspects into a single score.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-06T14:42:01Z)
• 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)
• Off-policy evaluation for learning-to-rank via interpolating the item-position model and the position-based model [83.83064559894989]
  A critical need for industrial recommender systems is the ability to evaluate recommendation policies offline, before deploying them to production. We develop a new estimator that mitigates the problems of the two most popular off-policy estimators for rankings. In particular, the new estimator, called INTERPOL, addresses the bias of a potentially misspecified position-based model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-15T17:22:30Z)

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.