Mitigating the Bias of Large Language Model Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2409.16788v1
• Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2024 09:52:44 GMT
• Title: Mitigating the Bias of Large Language Model Evaluation
• Authors: Hongli Zhou, Hui Huang, Yunfei Long, Bing Xu, Conghui Zhu, Hailong Cao, Muyun Yang, Tiejun Zhao,
• Abstract summary: We propose systematic research about the bias of LLM-as-a-Judge. For closed-source judge models, we apply calibration to mitigate the significance of superficial quality. For open-source judge models, we propose to mitigate the bias by contrastive training, with curated negative samples that deviate from instruction but present better superficial quality.
• Score: 30.67730115141905
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Recently, there has been a trend of evaluating the Large Language Model (LLM) quality in the flavor of LLM-as-a-Judge, namely leveraging another LLM to evaluate the current output quality. However, existing judges are proven to be biased, namely they would favor answers which present better superficial quality (such as verbosity, fluency) while ignoring the instruction following ability. In this work, we propose systematic research about the bias of LLM-as-a-Judge. Specifically, for closed-source judge models, we apply calibration to mitigate the significance of superficial quality, both on probability level and prompt level. For open-source judge models, we propose to mitigate the bias by contrastive training, with curated negative samples that deviate from instruction but present better superficial quality. We apply our methods on the bias evaluation benchmark, and experiment results show our methods mitigate the bias by a large margin while maintaining a satisfactory evaluation accuracy.

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)
• Beyond Performance: Quantifying and Mitigating Label Bias in LLMs [8.77694178599322]
  We evaluate different approaches to quantifying label bias in a model's predictions. Our investigation reveals substantial label bias in models both before and after debiasing attempts. We propose a novel label bias calibration method tailored for few-shot prompting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-04T19:53:03Z)
• 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)
• Likelihood-based Mitigation of Evaluation Bias in Large Language Models [37.07596663793111]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used to evaluate natural language generation tasks as automated metrics. It is possible that there might be a likelihood bias if LLMs are used for evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-25T04:52:02Z)
• Self-Evaluation Improves Selective Generation in Large Language Models [54.003992911447696]
  We reformulate open-ended generation tasks into token-level prediction tasks. We instruct an LLM to self-evaluate its answers. We benchmark a range of scoring methods based on self-evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-14T19:09:22Z)
• GPTBIAS: A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluating Bias in Large Language Models [83.30078426829627]
  Large language models (LLMs) have gained popularity and are being widely adopted by a large user community. The existing evaluation methods have many constraints, and their results exhibit a limited degree of interpretability. We propose a bias evaluation framework named GPTBIAS that leverages the high performance of LLMs to assess bias in models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-11T12:02:14Z)
• Benchmarking Cognitive Biases in Large Language Models as Evaluators [16.845939677403287]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have been shown to be effective as automatic evaluators with simple prompting and in-context learning. We evaluate the quality of ranking outputs introducing the Cognitive Bias Benchmark for LLMs as Evaluators. We find that LLMs are biased text quality evaluators, exhibiting strong indications on our bias benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-29T06:53:10Z)
• 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)
• 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)

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.