Aligning Black-box Language Models with Human Judgments

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.04997v1
• Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2025 15:19:40 GMT
• Title: Aligning Black-box Language Models with Human Judgments
• Authors: Gerrit J. J. van den Burg, Gen Suzuki, Wei Liu, Murat Sensoy,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as automated judges to evaluate recommendation systems, search engines, and other subjective tasks. We propose a framework to align LLM judgments with individual human evaluators or their aggregated judgments. Our approach achieves over 142% average improvement in agreement across 29 tasks with only a small number of calibration examples used for training.
• Score: 8.30794246257544
• License:
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as automated judges to evaluate recommendation systems, search engines, and other subjective tasks, where relying on human evaluators can be costly, time-consuming, and unscalable. LLMs offer an efficient solution for continuous, automated evaluation. However, since the systems that are built and improved with these judgments are ultimately designed for human use, it is crucial that LLM judgments align closely with human evaluators to ensure such systems remain human-centered. On the other hand, aligning LLM judgments with human evaluators is challenging due to individual variability and biases in human judgments. We propose a simple yet effective framework to align LLM judgments with individual human evaluators or their aggregated judgments, without retraining or fine-tuning the LLM. Our approach learns a linear mapping between the LLM's outputs and human judgments, achieving over 142% average improvement in agreement across 29 tasks with only a small number of calibration examples used for training. Notably, our method works in zero-shot and few-shot settings, exceeds inter-human agreement on four out of six tasks, and enables smaller LLMs to achieve performance comparable to that of larger models.

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)
• Optimizing Alignment with Less: Leveraging Data Augmentation for Personalized Evaluation [2.933641361932625]
  We present a data augmentation technique to select a more effective sample from limited data in order to align an open LLM with human preference. Our work achieves approximately 7% improvements in Pearson correlation with a reference judge over the baseline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-10T11:40:11Z)
• Systematic Evaluation of LLM-as-a-Judge in LLM Alignment Tasks: Explainable Metrics and Diverse Prompt Templates [10.091146498861333]
  Commercial large language models (LLMs) like GPT-4 have been recently employed to evaluate and compare different alignment approaches. We develop a framework to evaluate, compare, and visualize the reliability and alignment of LLM judges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-23T11:49:01Z)
• Sample-Efficient Human Evaluation of Large Language Models via Maximum Discrepancy Competition [46.949604465227054]
  We propose a sample-efficient human evaluation method based on MAximum Discrepancy (MAD) competition. MAD automatically selects a small set of informative and diverse instructions, each adapted to two LLMs. The pairwise comparison results are then aggregated into a global ranking using the Elo rating system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-10T01:26:24Z)
• Aligning with Human Judgement: The Role of Pairwise Preference in Large Language Model Evaluators [48.54465599914978]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated promising capabilities as automatic evaluators in assessing the quality of generated natural language. LLMs still exhibit biases in evaluation and often struggle to generate coherent evaluations that align with human assessments. We introduce Pairwise-preference Search (PAIRS), an uncertainty-guided search-based rank aggregation method that employs LLMs to conduct pairwise comparisons locally and efficiently ranks candidate texts globally.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-25T17:11:28Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations? [80.81532239566992]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional performance on unseen tasks when only the task instructions are provided. We show that the result of LLM evaluation is consistent with the results obtained by expert human evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-03T07:28:50Z)

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.