From Generation to Judgment: Opportunities and Challenges of LLM-as-a-judge
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.16594v1
- Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2024 17:28:44 GMT
- Title: From Generation to Judgment: Opportunities and Challenges of LLM-as-a-judge
- Authors: Dawei Li, Bohan Jiang, Liangjie Huang, Alimohammad Beigi, Chengshuai Zhao, Zhen Tan, Amrita Bhattacharjee, Yuxuan Jiang, Canyu Chen, Tianhao Wu, Kai Shu, Lu Cheng, Huan Liu,
- Abstract summary: Assessment and evaluation have long been critical challenges in artificial intelligence (AI) and natural language processing (NLP)
Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) inspire the "LLM-as-a-judge" paradigm.
- Score: 32.55871325700294
- License:
- Abstract: Assessment and evaluation have long been critical challenges in artificial intelligence (AI) and natural language processing (NLP). However, traditional methods, whether matching-based or embedding-based, often fall short of judging subtle attributes and delivering satisfactory results. Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) inspire the "LLM-as-a-judge" paradigm, where LLMs are leveraged to perform scoring, ranking, or selection across various tasks and applications. This paper provides a comprehensive survey of LLM-based judgment and assessment, offering an in-depth overview to advance this emerging field. We begin by giving detailed definitions from both input and output perspectives. Then we introduce a comprehensive taxonomy to explore LLM-as-a-judge from three dimensions: what to judge, how to judge and where to judge. Finally, we compile benchmarks for evaluating LLM-as-a-judge and highlight key challenges and promising directions, aiming to provide valuable insights and inspire future research in this promising research area. Paper list and more resources about LLM-as-a-judge can be found at \url{https://github.com/llm-as-a-judge/Awesome-LLM-as-a-judge} and \url{https://llm-as-a-judge.github.io}.
Related papers
- JudgeBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLM-based Judges [61.048125269475854]
JudgeBench is a benchmark for evaluating LLM-based judges on challenging response pairs spanning knowledge, reasoning, math, and coding.
Our comprehensive evaluation on a collection of prompted judges, fine-tuned judges, multi-agent judges, and reward models shows that JudgeBench poses a significantly greater challenge than previous benchmarks.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-10-16T17:58:19Z) - Evaluating the Evaluator: Measuring LLMs' Adherence to Task Evaluation Instructions [18.93335792080899]
We investigate how much influence prompting the LLMs-as-a-judge has on the alignment of AI judgements to human judgements.
We aggregate a taxonomy of quality criteria commonly used across state-of-the-art evaluations with LLMs and provide this as a rigorous benchmark of models as judges.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-08-16T14:49:35Z) - Fairness in Large Language Models in Three Hours [2.443957114877221]
This tutorial provides a systematic overview of recent advances in the literature concerning large language models.
The concept of fairness in LLMs is then explored, summarizing the strategies for evaluating bias and the algorithms designed to promote fairness.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-08-02T03:44:14Z) - Decompose and Aggregate: A Step-by-Step Interpretable Evaluation Framework [75.81096662788254]
Large Language Models (LLMs) are scalable and economical evaluators.
The question of how reliable these evaluators are has emerged as a crucial research question.
We propose Decompose and Aggregate, which breaks down the evaluation process into different stages based on pedagogical practices.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-05-24T08:12:30Z) - Evaluating the Factuality of Large Language Models using Large-Scale Knowledge Graphs [30.179703001666173]
Factuality issue is a critical concern for Large Language Models (LLMs)
We propose GraphEval to evaluate an LLM's performance using a substantially large test dataset.
Test dataset is retrieved from a large knowledge graph with more than 10 million facts without expensive human efforts.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-04-01T06:01:17Z) - Large Language Models: A Survey [69.72787936480394]
Large Language Models (LLMs) have drawn a lot of attention due to their strong performance on a wide range of natural language tasks.
LLMs' ability of general-purpose language understanding and generation is acquired by training billions of model's parameters on massive amounts of text data.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-09T05:37:09Z) - MLLM-as-a-Judge: Assessing Multimodal LLM-as-a-Judge with Vision-Language Benchmark [41.68821233828375]
This paper introduces a novel benchmark, termed MLLM-as-a-Judge, to assess the ability of MLLMs in assisting judges across diverse modalities.
Our study reveals that, while MLLMs demonstrate remarkable human-like discernment in Pair Comparison, there is a significant divergence from human preferences in Scoring Evaluation and Batch Ranking.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-07T12:28:32Z) - A Comprehensive Evaluation of Large Language Models on Legal Judgment
Prediction [60.70089334782383]
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated great potential for domain-specific applications.
Recent disputes over GPT-4's law evaluation raise questions concerning their performance in real-world legal tasks.
We design practical baseline solutions based on LLMs and test on the task of legal judgment prediction.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-18T07:38:04Z) - Evaluating Large Language Models at Evaluating Instruction Following [54.49567482594617]
We introduce a challenging meta-evaluation benchmark, LLMBar, designed to test the ability of an LLM evaluator in discerning instruction-following outputs.
We discover that different evaluators exhibit distinct performance on LLMBar and even the highest-scoring ones have substantial room for improvement.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-11T16:38:11Z) - A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models [87.60417393701331]
Large language models (LLMs) are gaining increasing popularity in both academia and industry.
This paper focuses on three key dimensions: what to evaluate, where to evaluate, and how to evaluate.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-07-06T16:28:35Z)
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.