Related papers: Pairwise or Pointwise? Evaluating Feedback Protoco…

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as evaluators for natural language generation tasks, ensuring unbiased assessments is essential. However, LLM evaluators often display biased preferences, such as favoring verbosity and…

Aligning large language models (LLMs) with human values and intents critically involves the use of human or AI feedback. While dense feedback annotations are expensive to acquire and integrate, sparse feedback presents a structural design…

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated promising capabilities as automatic evaluators in assessing the quality of generated natural language. However, LLMs still exhibit biases in evaluation and often struggle to generate coherent…

Large language models (LLMs) are now widely used to evaluate the quality of text, a field commonly referred to as LLM-as-a-judge. While prior works mainly focus on point-wise and pair-wise evaluation paradigms. Rubric-based evaluation,…

The "LLM-as-a-Judge" paradigm, using Large Language Models (LLMs) as automated evaluators, is pivotal to LLM development, offering scalable feedback for complex tasks. However, the reliability of these judges is compromised by various…

Large language models (LLMs) are known to produce varying responses depending on prompt phrasing, indicating that subtle guidance in phrasing can steer their answers. However, the impact of this framing bias on LLM-based evaluation, where…

Large language models (LLMs) are widely used as scalable evaluators of model responses in lieu of human annotators. However, imperfect sensitivity and specificity of the LLM judges induce bias in naive evaluation scores. We propose a simple…

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in tasks such as psychological text analysis and decision-making in automated workflows. However, their reliability remains a concern due to potential biases inherited from their training…

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being used to autonomously evaluate the quality of content in communication systems, e.g., to assess responses in telecom customer support chatbots. However, the impartiality of these AI…

New Large Language Models (LLMs) become available every few weeks, and modern application developers confronted with the unenviable task of having to decide if they should switch to a new model. While human evaluation remains the gold…

The zero-shot capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) has enabled highly flexible, reference-free metrics for various tasks, making LLM evaluators common tools in NLP. However, the robustness of these LLM evaluators remains relatively…

The capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) are routinely evaluated by other LLMs trained to predict human preferences. This framework--known as LLM-as-a-judge--is highly scalable and relatively low cost. However, it is also vulnerable…

Large Language Models are cognitively biased judges. Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently been shown to be effective as automatic evaluators with simple prompting and in-context learning. In this work, we assemble 15 LLMs of four…

Recent studies have demonstrated that large language models (LLMs) exhibit significant biases in evaluation tasks, particularly in preferentially rating and favoring self-generated content. However, the extent to which this bias manifests…

Evaluation of large language model (LLM) outputs requires users to make critical judgments about the best outputs across various configurations. This process is costly and takes time given the large amounts of data. LLMs are increasingly…

In recent years, Large Language Models (LLMs) have witnessed a remarkable surge in prevalence, altering the landscape of natural language processing and machine learning. One key factor in improving the performance of LLMs is alignment with…

Human relevance assessment is time-consuming and cognitively intensive, limiting the scalability of Information Retrieval evaluation. This has led to growing interest in using large language models (LLMs) as proxies for human judges.…

The adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) as automated evaluators (LLM-as-a-judge) has revealed critical inconsistencies in current evaluation frameworks. We identify two fundamental types of inconsistencies: (1) Score-Comparison…

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as automatic judges to evaluate system outputs in tasks such as summarization, dialogue, and creative writing. A faithful judge should base its verdicts solely on response quality and…

Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have incentivized the development of LLM-as-a-judge, an application of LLMs where they are used as judges to decide the quality of a certain piece of text given a certain context. However,…