Crowd Comparative Reasoning: Unlocking Comprehensive Evaluations for LLM-as-a-Judge

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.12501v1
• Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 03:31:06 GMT
• Title: Crowd Comparative Reasoning: Unlocking Comprehensive Evaluations for LLM-as-a-Judge
• Authors: Qiyuan Zhang, Yufei Wang, Yuxin Jiang, Liangyou Li, Chuhan Wu, Yasheng Wang, Xin Jiang, Lifeng Shang, Ruiming Tang, Fuyuan Lyu, Chen Ma,
• Abstract summary: We propose Crowd-based Comparative Evaluation, which introduces additional crowd responses to compare with the candidate responses. This process effectively guides LLM-as-a-Judge to provide a more detailed chain-of-thought (CoT) judgment. Our method produces higher-quality CoTs that facilitate judge distillation and exhibit superior performance in rejection sampling.
• Score: 90.8674158031845
• License:
• Abstract: LLM-as-a-Judge, which generates chain-of-thought (CoT) judgments, has become a widely adopted auto-evaluation method. However, its reliability is compromised by the CoT reasoning's inability to capture comprehensive and deeper details, often leading to incomplete outcomes. Existing methods mainly rely on majority voting or criteria expansion, which is insufficient to address the limitation in CoT. We propose Crowd-based Comparative Evaluation, which introduces additional crowd responses to compare with the candidate responses, thereby exposing deeper and more comprehensive details within the candidate responses. This process effectively guides LLM-as-a-Judge to provide a more detailed CoT judgment. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our approach enhances evaluation reliability, achieving an average accuracy gain of 6.7% across five benchmarks. Moreover, our method produces higher-quality CoTs that facilitate judge distillation and exhibit superior performance in rejection sampling for supervised fine-tuning (SFT), referred to as crowd rejection sampling, thereby enabling more efficient SFT. Our analysis confirms that CoTs generated by ours are more comprehensive and of higher quality, and evaluation accuracy improves as inference scales.

Related papers

• CER: Confidence Enhanced Reasoning in LLMs [2.4392539322920763]
  We introduce an uncertainty-aware framework designed to enhance the accuracy of Large Language Models responses. We quantify the confidence of intermediate answers such as numerical results in mathematical reasoning and proper nouns in open-domain generation. Results consistently validate the effectiveness of our novel confidence aggregation method.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-20T15:16:42Z)
• Confidence Improves Self-Consistency in LLMs [9.764747744761085]
  We introduce Confidence-Informed Self-Consistency (CISC) CISC performs a weighted majority vote based on confidence scores obtained directly from the model. When tested on nine models and four datasets, CISC outperforms self-consistency in nearly all configurations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-10T08:10:29Z)
• Step-by-Step Reasoning for Math Problems via Twisted Sequential Monte Carlo [55.452453947359736]
  We introduce a novel verification method based on Twisted Sequential Monte Carlo (TSMC) We apply TSMC to Large Language Models by estimating the expected future rewards at partial solutions. This approach results in a more straightforward training target that eliminates the need for step-wise human annotations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-02T18:17:54Z)
• Reasoning Aware Self-Consistency: Leveraging Reasoning Paths for Efficient LLM Sampling [9.44858963874474]
  Self-Consistency mitigates hallucinations in Large Language Models (LLMs) by sampling multiple reasoning paths. We introduce Reasoning-Aware Self-Consistency (RASC), a novel framework that enhances sampling efficiency and reasoning faithfulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-30T05:14:59Z)
• 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)
• Synchronous Faithfulness Monitoring for Trustworthy Retrieval-Augmented Generation [96.78845113346809]
  Retrieval-augmented language models (RALMs) have shown strong performance and wide applicability in knowledge-intensive tasks. This paper proposes SynCheck, a lightweight monitor that leverages fine-grained decoding dynamics to detect unfaithful sentences. We also introduce FOD, a faithfulness-oriented decoding algorithm guided by beam search for long-form retrieval-augmented generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-19T16:42:57Z)
• DCR-Consistency: Divide-Conquer-Reasoning for Consistency Evaluation and Improvement of Large Language Models [4.953092503184905]
  This work proposes DCR, an automated framework for evaluating and improving the consistency of Large Language Models (LLMs) generated texts. We introduce an automatic metric converter (AMC) that translates the output from DCE into an interpretable numeric score. Our approach also substantially reduces nearly 90% of output inconsistencies, showing promise for effective hallucination mitigation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-04T08:34:16Z)
• Self-Evaluation Improves Selective Generation in Large Language Models [54.003992911447696]
  We reformulate open-ended generation tasks into token-level prediction tasks. We instruct an LLM to self-evaluate its answers. We benchmark a range of scoring methods based on self-evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-14T19:09:22Z)
• Evaluate What You Can't Evaluate: Unassessable Quality for Generated Response [56.25966921370483]
  There are challenges in using reference-free evaluators based on large language models. Reference-free evaluators are more suitable for open-ended examples with different semantics responses. There are risks in using eference-free evaluators based on LLMs to evaluate the quality of dialogue responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T02:52:48Z)

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.