No Free Labels: Limitations of LLM-as-a-Judge Without Human Grounding

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.05061v1
• Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2025 00:42:08 GMT
• Title: No Free Labels: Limitations of LLM-as-a-Judge Without Human Grounding
• Authors: Michael Krumdick, Charles Lovering, Varshini Reddy, Seth Ebner, Chris Tanner,
• Abstract summary: We evaluate how well LLM Judges can grade whether a given response to a conversational question is correct.<n>We source questions from a combination of existing datasets and a novel, challenging benchmark (BFF-Bench) created for this analysis.<n>We show that providing a weaker judge with higher quality references reaches better agreement with human annotators than a stronger judge.
• Score: 3.1674468740431396
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: LLM-as-a-Judge is a framework that uses an LLM (large language model) to evaluate the quality of natural language text - typically text that is also generated by an LLM. This framework holds great promise due to its relative low-cost, ease of use, and strong correlations with human stylistic preferences. However, LLM Judges have been shown to exhibit biases that can distort their judgments. We evaluate how well LLM Judges can grade whether a given response to a conversational question is correct, an ability crucial to soundly estimating the overall response quality. To do so, we create and publicly release a human-annotated dataset with labels of correctness for 1,200 LLM responses. We source questions from a combination of existing datasets and a novel, challenging benchmark (BFF-Bench) created for this analysis. We demonstrate a strong connection between an LLM's ability to correctly answer a question and grade responses to that question. Although aggregate level statistics might imply a judge has high agreement with human annotators, it will struggle on the subset of questions it could not answer. To address this issue, we recommend a simple solution: provide the judge with a correct, human-written reference answer. We perform an in-depth analysis on how reference quality can affect the performance of an LLM Judge. We show that providing a weaker judge (e.g. Qwen 2.5 7B) with higher quality references reaches better agreement with human annotators than a stronger judge (e.g. GPT-4o) with synthetic references.

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.<n>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)
• LLM-Rubric: A Multidimensional, Calibrated Approach to Automated Evaluation of Natural Language Texts [44.42036618863284]
  This paper introduces a framework for the automated evaluation of natural language texts. A large language model (LLM) is prompted with each rubric question and produces a distribution over potential responses. LLM predictions often fail to agree well with human judges -- indeed, the humans do not fully agree with one another. LLM-Rubric accomplishes this by training a small feed-forward neural network that includes both judge-specific and judge-independent parameters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-31T04:57:01Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Perception of Knowledge Boundary for Large Language Models through Semi-open-ended Question Answering [67.94354589215637]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used for knowledge-seeking yet suffer from hallucinations. In this paper, we perceive the LLMs' knowledge boundary (KB) with semi-open-ended questions (SoeQ) We find that GPT-4 performs poorly on SoeQ and is often unaware of its KB. Our auxiliary model, LLaMA-2-13B, is effective in discovering more ambiguous answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-23T10:00:14Z)
• Rephrase and Respond: Let Large Language Models Ask Better Questions for Themselves [57.974103113675795]
  We present a method named Rephrase and Respond' (RaR) which allows Large Language Models to rephrase and expand questions posed by humans. RaR serves as a simple yet effective prompting method for improving performance. We show that RaR is complementary to the popular Chain-of-Thought (CoT) methods, both theoretically and empirically.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-07T18:43:34Z)
• JudgeLM: Fine-tuned Large Language Models are Scalable Judges [48.053949045598344]
  evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) in open-ended scenarios is challenging because existing benchmarks and metrics can not measure them comprehensively. We propose to fine-tune LLMs as scalable judges (JudgeLM) to evaluate LLMs efficiently and effectively in open-ended benchmarks. We train JudgeLM at different scales from 7B, 13B, to 33B parameters, and conduct a systematic analysis of its capabilities and behaviors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-26T17:48:58Z)
• Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena [76.21004582932268]
  We examine the usage and limitations of LLM-as-a-judge, including position, verbosity, and self-enhancement biases. We then verify the agreement between LLM judges and human preferences by introducing two benchmarks: MT-bench, a multi-turn question set; and Arena, a crowdsourced battle platform.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-09T05:55:52Z)
• 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.