GLIDER: Grading LLM Interactions and Decisions using Explainable Ranking

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.14140v2
• Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2024 21:59:56 GMT
• Title: GLIDER: Grading LLM Interactions and Decisions using Explainable Ranking
• Authors: Darshan Deshpande, Selvan Sunitha Ravi, Sky CH-Wang, Bartosz Mielczarek, Anand Kannappan, Rebecca Qian,
• Abstract summary: We introduce GLIDER, a powerful 3B evaluator LLM that can score any text input and associated context on arbitrary user defined criteria. GLIDER shows higher Pearson's correlation than GPT-4o on FLASK and greatly outperforms prior evaluation models. It supports fine-grained scoring, multilingual reasoning, span highlighting and was trained on 685 domains and 183 criteria.
• Score: 0.9614204956530676
• License:
• Abstract: The LLM-as-judge paradigm is increasingly being adopted for automated evaluation of model outputs. While LLM judges have shown promise on constrained evaluation tasks, closed source LLMs display critical shortcomings when deployed in real world applications due to challenges of fine grained metrics and explainability, while task specific evaluation models lack cross-domain generalization. We introduce GLIDER, a powerful 3B evaluator LLM that can score any text input and associated context on arbitrary user defined criteria. GLIDER shows higher Pearson's correlation than GPT-4o on FLASK and greatly outperforms prior evaluation models, achieving comparable performance to LLMs 17x its size. GLIDER supports fine-grained scoring, multilingual reasoning, span highlighting and was trained on 685 domains and 183 criteria. Extensive qualitative analysis shows that GLIDER scores are highly correlated with human judgments, with 91.3% human agreement. We have open-sourced GLIDER to facilitate future research.

Related papers

• Potential and Perils of Large Language Models as Judges of Unstructured Textual Data [0.631976908971572]
  This research investigates the effectiveness of LLM-as-judge models to evaluate the thematic alignment of summaries generated by other LLMs. Our findings reveal that while LLM-as-judge offer a scalable solution comparable to human raters, humans may still excel at detecting subtle, context-specific nuances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-14T14:49:14Z)
• A Large-Scale Study of Relevance Assessments with Large Language Models: An Initial Look [52.114284476700874]
  This paper reports on the results of a large-scale evaluation (the TREC 2024 RAG Track) where four different relevance assessment approaches were deployed. We find that automatically generated UMBRELA judgments can replace fully manual judgments to accurately capture run-level effectiveness. Surprisingly, we find that LLM assistance does not appear to increase correlation with fully manual assessments, suggesting that costs associated with human-in-the-loop processes do not bring obvious tangible benefits.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-13T01:12:35Z)
• LLM Self-Correction with DeCRIM: Decompose, Critique, and Refine for Enhanced Following of Instructions with Multiple Constraints [86.59857711385833]
  We introduce RealInstruct, the first benchmark designed to evaluate LLMs' ability to follow real-world multi-constrained instructions. To address the performance gap between open-source and proprietary models, we propose the Decompose, Critique and Refine (DeCRIM) self-correction pipeline. Our results show that DeCRIM improves Mistral's performance by 7.3% on RealInstruct and 8.0% on IFEval even with weak feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T01:25:10Z)
• 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)
• Leveraging LLMs for Dialogue Quality Measurement [27.046917937460798]
  Large language models (LLMs) show robust zeroshot and few-shot capabilities across NLP tasks. Manipulating factors such as model size, in-context examples, and selection techniques, we examine "chain-of-thought" (CoT) reasoning and label extraction procedures. Our results indicate that LLMs that are suitably fine-tuned and have sufficient reasoning capabilities can be leveraged for automated dialogue evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-25T06:19:47Z)
• DnA-Eval: Enhancing Large Language Model Evaluation through Decomposition and Aggregation [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)
• METAL: Towards Multilingual Meta-Evaluation [12.852595634767901]
  This study proposes a framework for an end-to-end assessment of Large Language Models (LLMs) as evaluators in multilingual scenarios. We create a dataset covering 10 languages containing native speaker judgments for the task of summarization. We compare the performance of LLM-based evaluators created using GPT-3.5-Turbo, GPT-4, and PaLM2.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-02T06:14:54Z)
• PiCO: Peer Review in LLMs based on the Consistency Optimization [19.130941716491716]
  We use peer-review mechanisms to measure large language models (LLMs) automatically. We formalize it as a constrained optimization problem, intending to maximize the consistency of each LLM's capabilities and scores. We propose three metrics called PEN, CIN, and LIS to evaluate the gap in aligning human rankings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-02T18:49:26Z)
• Exploring the Reliability of Large Language Models as Customized Evaluators for Diverse NLP Tasks [65.69651759036535]
  We analyze whether large language models (LLMs) can serve as reliable alternatives to humans. This paper explores both conventional tasks (e.g., story generation) and alignment tasks (e.g., math reasoning) We find that LLM evaluators can generate unnecessary criteria or omit crucial criteria, resulting in a slight deviation from the experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T17:04:35Z)
• A Closer Look into Automatic Evaluation Using Large Language Models [75.49360351036773]
  We discuss how details in the evaluation process change how well the ratings given by LLMs correlate with human ratings. We find that the auto Chain-of-Thought (CoT) used in G-Eval does not always make G-Eval more aligned with human ratings. We also show that forcing the LLM to output only a numeric rating, as in G-Eval, is suboptimal.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-09T12:12:55Z)
• Large Language Models are Not Yet Human-Level Evaluators for Abstractive Summarization [66.08074487429477]
  We investigate the stability and reliability of large language models (LLMs) as automatic evaluators for abstractive summarization. We find that while ChatGPT and GPT-4 outperform the commonly used automatic metrics, they are not ready as human replacements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T14:58:13Z)

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.