LLMs are Biased Evaluators But Not Biased for Retrieval Augmented Generation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.20833v1
• Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2024 08:32:09 GMT
• Title: LLMs are Biased Evaluators But Not Biased for Retrieval Augmented Generation
• Authors: Yen-Shan Chen, Jing Jin, Peng-Ting Kuo, Chao-Wei Huang, Yun-Nung Chen,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) exhibit significant biases in evaluation tasks, particularly in preferentially rating and favoring self-generated content. Our study addresses this knowledge gap by simulating two critical phases of the retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) framework. Contrary to previous findings, our results reveal no significant self-preference effect in RAG frameworks.
• Score: 28.61326111959728
• License:
• Abstract: Recent studies have demonstrated that large language models (LLMs) exhibit significant biases in evaluation tasks, particularly in preferentially rating and favoring self-generated content. However, the extent to which this bias manifests in fact-oriented tasks, especially within retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) frameworks-where keyword extraction and factual accuracy take precedence over stylistic elements-remains unclear. Our study addresses this knowledge gap by simulating two critical phases of the RAG framework. In the first phase, we access the suitability of human-authored versus model-generated passages, emulating the pointwise reranking process. The second phase involves conducting pairwise reading comprehension tests to simulate the generation process. Contrary to previous findings indicating a self-preference in rating tasks, our results reveal no significant self-preference effect in RAG frameworks. Instead, we observe that factual accuracy significantly influences LLMs' output, even in the absence of prior knowledge. Our research contributes to the ongoing discourse on LLM biases and their implications for RAG-based system, offering insights that may inform the development of more robust and unbiased LLM systems.

Related papers

• Self-Preference Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge [13.880151307013321]
  We introduce a novel metric to measure the self-preference bias in large language models (LLMs) Our results show GPT-4 exhibits a significant degree of self-preference bias. This suggests that the essence of the bias lies in perplexity and that the self-preference bias exists because LLMs prefer texts more familiar to them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-29T07:42:18Z)
• Aggregation Artifacts in Subjective Tasks Collapse Large Language Models' Posteriors [74.04775677110179]
  In-context Learning (ICL) has become the primary method for performing natural language tasks with Large Language Models (LLMs) In this work, we examine whether this is the result of the aggregation used in corresponding datasets, where trying to combine low-agreement, disparate annotations might lead to annotation artifacts that create detrimental noise in the prompt. Our results indicate that aggregation is a confounding factor in the modeling of subjective tasks, and advocate focusing on modeling individuals instead.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-17T17:16:00Z)
• Long-Context LLMs Meet RAG: Overcoming Challenges for Long Inputs in RAG [36.754491649652664]
  Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) empowers large language models (LLMs) to utilize external knowledge sources. This paper investigates the detrimental impact of retrieved "hard negatives" as a key contributor. To mitigate this and enhance the robustness of long-context LLM-based RAG, we propose both training-free and training-based approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-08T12:30:07Z)
• 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)
• Evaluating Human Alignment and Model Faithfulness of LLM Rationale [66.75309523854476]
  We study how well large language models (LLMs) explain their generations through rationales. We show that prompting-based methods are less "faithful" than attribution-based explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T20:06:30Z)
• Large Language Models are Biased Reinforcement Learners [0.0]
  We show that large language models (LLMs) exhibit behavioral signatures of a relative value bias. Computational cognitive modeling reveals that LLM behavior is well-described by a simple RL algorithm.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-19T01:43:52Z)
• 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)
• Self-RAG: Learning to Retrieve, Generate, and Critique through Self-Reflection [74.51523859064802]
  We introduce a new framework called Self-Reflective Retrieval-Augmented Generation (Self-RAG) Self-RAG enhances an LM's quality and factuality through retrieval and self-reflection. It significantly outperforms state-of-the-art LLMs and retrieval-augmented models on a diverse set of tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-17T18:18:32Z)
• Benchmarking Large Language Models in Retrieval-Augmented Generation [53.504471079548]
  We systematically investigate the impact of Retrieval-Augmented Generation on large language models. We analyze the performance of different large language models in 4 fundamental abilities required for RAG. We establish Retrieval-Augmented Generation Benchmark (RGB), a new corpus for RAG evaluation in both English and Chinese.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-04T08:28:44Z)

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.