JuStRank: Benchmarking LLM Judges for System Ranking

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.09569v1
• Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 18:51:13 GMT
• Title: JuStRank: Benchmarking LLM Judges for System Ranking
• Authors: Ariel Gera, Odellia Boni, Yotam Perlitz, Roy Bar-Haim, Lilach Eden, Asaf Yehudai,
• Abstract summary: We conduct the first large-scale study of LLM judges as system rankers. System scores are generated by aggregating judgment scores over multiple system outputs. Our analysis provides a fine-grained characterization of judge behavior, including their decisiveness and bias.
• Score: 7.507819077549208
• License:
• Abstract: Given the rapid progress of generative AI, there is a pressing need to systematically compare and choose between the numerous models and configurations available. The scale and versatility of such evaluations make the use of LLM-based judges a compelling solution for this challenge. Crucially, this approach requires first to validate the quality of the LLM judge itself. Previous work has focused on instance-based assessment of LLM judges, where a judge is evaluated over a set of responses, or response pairs, while being agnostic to their source systems. We argue that this setting overlooks critical factors affecting system-level ranking, such as a judge's positive or negative bias towards certain systems. To address this gap, we conduct the first large-scale study of LLM judges as system rankers. System scores are generated by aggregating judgment scores over multiple system outputs, and the judge's quality is assessed by comparing the resulting system ranking to a human-based ranking. Beyond overall judge assessment, our analysis provides a fine-grained characterization of judge behavior, including their decisiveness and bias.

Related papers

• Re-evaluating Automatic LLM System Ranking for Alignment with Human Preference [63.03859517284341]
  An automatic evaluation framework aims to rank LLMs based on their alignment with human preferences. An automatic LLM bencher consists of four components: the input set, the evaluation model, the evaluation type and the aggregation method.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-31T17:46:51Z)
• 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)
• JudgeRank: Leveraging Large Language Models for Reasoning-Intensive Reranking [81.88787401178378]
  We introduce JudgeRank, a novel agentic reranker that emulates human cognitive processes when assessing document relevance. We evaluate JudgeRank on the reasoning-intensive BRIGHT benchmark, demonstrating substantial performance improvements over first-stage retrieval methods. In addition, JudgeRank performs on par with fine-tuned state-of-the-art rerankers on the popular BEIR benchmark, validating its zero-shot generalization capability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-31T18:43:12Z)
• 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)
• From Calculation to Adjudication: Examining LLM judges on Mathematical Reasoning Tasks [11.01213914485374]
  We study large language models (LLMs) on mathematical reasoning tasks. Our analysis uncovers a strong correlation between judgment performance and the candidate model task performance. We show that it is possible to use statistics, such as the task performances of the individual models, to predict judgment performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-06T10:09:41Z)
• 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)
• JudgeLM: Fine-tuned Large Language Models are Scalable Judges [54.007823006976516]
  We propose to fine-tune Large Language Models (LLMs) as scalable judges (JudgeLM) to evaluate LLMs efficiently and effectively in open-ended benchmarks. We first propose a comprehensive, large-scale, high-quality dataset containing task seeds, LLMs-generated answers, and GPT-4-generated judgments for fine-tuning high-performance judges. We then analyze the key biases in fine-tuning LLM as a judge and consider them as position bias, knowledge bias, and format bias.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-26T17:48:58Z)
• 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)
• Perspectives on Large Language Models for Relevance Judgment [56.935731584323996]
  Large language models (LLMs) claim that they can assist with relevance judgments. It is not clear whether automated judgments can reliably be used in evaluations of retrieval systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-13T13:08:38Z)
• Vote'n'Rank: Revision of Benchmarking with Social Choice Theory [7.224599819499157]
  This paper proposes Vote'n'Rank, a framework for ranking systems in multi-task benchmarks under the principles of the social choice theory. We demonstrate that our approach can be efficiently utilised to draw new insights on benchmarking in several ML sub-fields.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-11T20:19:11Z)

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.