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.<n>This process effectively guides LLM-as-a-Judge to provide a more detailed chain-of-thought (CoT) judgment.<n>Our method produces higher-quality CoTs that facilitate judge distillation and exhibit superior performance in rejection sampling.
• Score: 90.8674158031845
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• 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

• Pairwise or Pointwise? Evaluating Feedback Protocols for Bias in LLM-Based Evaluation [57.380464382910375]
  We show that the choice of feedback protocol can significantly affect evaluation reliability and induce systematic biases. In particular, we show that pairwise evaluation protocols are more vulnerable to distracted evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-20T19:05:59Z)
• Supervised Optimism Correction: Be Confident When LLMs Are Sure [91.7459076316849]
  We establish a novel theoretical connection between supervised fine-tuning and offline reinforcement learning. We show that the widely used beam search method suffers from unacceptable over-optimism. We propose Supervised Optimism Correction, which introduces a simple yet effective auxiliary loss for token-level $Q$-value estimations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-10T07:50:03Z)
• JudgeLRM: Large Reasoning Models as a Judge [65.14085339820795]
  We investigate whether Large Language Models (LLMs) judges truly benefit from enhanced reasoning capabilities. We introduce JudgeLRM, a family of judgment-oriented LLMs trained using reinforcement learning (RL) with judge-wise, outcome-driven rewards.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-31T02:18:51Z)
• 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)<n>CISC performs a weighted majority vote based on confidence scores obtained directly from the model.<n>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.<n>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)
• The Comparative Trap: Pairwise Comparisons Amplifies Biased Preferences of LLM Evaluators [31.520403357740317]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as evaluators for natural language generation tasks. LLMs display biased preferences, such as favoring verbosity and authoritative tones. We introduce PRePair, which integrates pointwise reasoning within a pairwise framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-18T06:43:04Z)
• 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)
• Style Over Substance: Evaluation Biases for Large Language Models [17.13064447978519]
  This study investigates the behavior of crowd-sourced and expert annotators, as well as large language models (LLMs) Our findings reveal a concerning bias in the evaluation process, as answers with factual errors are rated more favorably than answers that are too short or contained grammatical errors. We propose independently evaluating machine-generated text across multiple dimensions, rather than merging all the evaluation aspects into a single score.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-06T14:42:01Z)
• Self-Evaluation Guided Beam Search for Reasoning [61.523627290397556]
  We introduce a stepwise self-evaluation mechanism to guide and calibrate the reasoning process of Large Language Model (LLM) We propose a decoding algorithm integrating the self-evaluation guidance via beam search. Our approach surpasses the corresponding Codex-backboned baselines in few-shot accuracy by $6.34%$, $9.56%$, and $5.46%$ on the GSM8K, AQuA, and StrategyQA.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-01T02:37:59Z)

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.