Tuning LLM Judge Design Decisions for 1/1000 of the Cost

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2501.17178v2
• Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2025 08:21:00 GMT
• Title: Tuning LLM Judge Design Decisions for 1/1000 of the Cost
• Authors: David Salinas, Omar Swelam, Frank Hutter,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) often require costly human annotations. To address this, LLM-based judges have been proposed, which compare the outputs of two LLMs. While several approaches have been proposed, many confounding factors are present between different papers.
• Score: 42.06346155380305
• License:
• Abstract: Evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) often requires costly human annotations. To address this, LLM-based judges have been proposed, which compare the outputs of two LLMs enabling the ranking of models without human intervention. While several approaches have been proposed, many confounding factors are present between different papers. For instance the model, the prompt and other hyperparameters are typically changed at the same time making apple-to-apple comparisons challenging. In this paper, we propose to systematically analyze and tune hyperparameter of LLM judges. To alleviate the high cost of evaluating a judge, we propose to leverage multi-objective multi-fidelity which allows to find judges that trades accuracy for cost and also reduce significantly the cost of the search. Our method identifies judges that not only outperform existing benchmarks in accuracy and cost-efficiency but also utilize open-weight models, ensuring greater accessibility and reproducibility.

Related papers

• JudgeBlender: Ensembling Judgments for Automatic Relevance Assessment [28.4353755578306]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in generating relevance labels for search tasks. We introduce JudgeBlender, a framework that employs smaller, open-source models to provide relevance judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-17T19:04:15Z)
• 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)
• On Speeding Up Language Model Evaluation [48.51924035873411]
  Development of prompt-based methods with Large Language Models (LLMs) requires making numerous decisions. We propose a novel method to address this challenge. We show that it can identify the top-performing method using only 5-15% of the typically needed resources.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-08T17:48:42Z)
• Judging the Judges: Evaluating Alignment and Vulnerabilities in LLMs-as-Judges [6.609843448260634]
  The LLM-as-a-judge paradigm is rapidly gaining traction as an approach to evaluating large language models. This paper focuses on a clean scenario in which inter-human agreement is high. We identify vulnerabilities in judge models, such as their sensitivity to prompt complexity and length, and a tendency toward leniency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-18T13:49:54Z)
• Language Model Council: Democratically Benchmarking Foundation Models on Highly Subjective Tasks [3.58262772907022]
  We introduce the Language Model Council (LMC), where a group of LLMs collaborate to create tests, respond to them, and evaluate each other's responses to produce a ranking in a democratic fashion. In a detailed case study on emotional intelligence, we deploy a council of 20 recent LLMs to rank each other on open-ended responses to interpersonal conflicts. Our results show that the LMC produces rankings that are more separable and more robust, and through a user study, we show that they are more consistent with human evaluations than any individual LLM judge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-12T19:05:43Z)
• Optimising Calls to Large Language Models with Uncertainty-Based Two-Tier Selection [80.63946798650653]
  Decision centers on whether to use a large LLM with better performance or a smaller one with reduced costs. We propose a simpler solution; we use only the uncertainty of the generations of the small LLM as the decision criterion. Our experiments reveal this simple solution optimally balances cost and performance, outperforming existing methods on 25 out of 27 experimental setups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-03T14:38:59Z)
• Replacing Judges with Juries: Evaluating LLM Generations with a Panel of Diverse Models [56.02275285521847]
  We propose to evaluate models using a Panel of LLm evaluators (PoLL) We find that using a PoLL composed of a larger number of smaller models outperforms a single large judge, exhibits less intra-model bias due to its composition of disjoint model families, and does so while being over seven times less expensive.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-29T15:33:23Z)
• MiniSUPERB: Lightweight Benchmark for Self-supervised Speech Models [90.99663022952498]
  SuperB was proposed to evaluate the generalizability of self-supervised learning (SSL) speech models across various tasks. SuperB incurs high computational costs due to the large datasets and diverse tasks. We introduce MiniSUPERB, a lightweight benchmark that efficiently evaluates SSL speech models with comparable results to SUPERB but lower computational costs significantly.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-30T13:07:33Z)

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.