Related papers: Pairwise or Pointwise? Evaluating Feedback Protoco…
A Large Language Model (LLM) as judge evaluates the quality of victim Machine Learning (ML) models, specifically LLMs, by analyzing their outputs. An LLM as judge is the combination of one model and one specifically engineered judge prompt…
When asked, large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT claim that they can assist with relevance judgments but it is not clear whether automated judgments can reliably be used in evaluations of retrieval systems. In this perspectives paper,…
As a relative quality comparison of model responses, human and Large Language Model (LLM) preferences serve as common alignment goals in model fine-tuning and criteria in evaluation. Yet, these preferences merely reflect broad tendencies,…
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly expected to handle complex decision-making tasks, yet their ability to perform structured resource allocation remains underexplored. Evaluating their reasoning is also difficult due to data…
LLM-based judges have emerged as a scalable alternative to human evaluation and are increasingly used to assess, compare, and improve models. However, the reliability of LLM-based judges themselves is rarely scrutinized. As LLMs become more…
Reward models (RMs) play a pivotal role in aligning large language models (LLMs) with human values. However, noisy preferences in human feedback can lead to reward misgeneralization - a phenomenon where reward models learn spurious…
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as automated evaluators of AI systems, including in high-stakes applications. In this role, LLMs are used to generate judgments about the quality, appropriateness, or even safety of model…
Large language models (LLMs) can be said to have preferences: they reliably pick certain tasks and outputs over others, and preferences shaped by post-training and system prompts appear to shape much of their behaviour. But models can also…
Large Language Models (LLMs) are transforming human decision-making by acting as cognitive collaborators. Yet, this promise comes with a paradox: while LLMs can improve accuracy, they may also erode independent reasoning, promote…
It is increasingly important to evaluate how text generation systems based on large language models (LLMs) behave, such as their tendency to produce harmful output or their sensitivity to adversarial inputs. Such evaluations often rely on a…
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in social science simulations. While their performance on reasoning and optimization tasks has been extensively evaluated, less attention has been paid to their ability to simulate human…
This research investigates the effect of prompt design on dialogue evaluation using large language models (LLMs). While LLMs are increasingly used for scoring various inputs, creating effective prompts for dialogue evaluation remains…
The growing deployment of large language models (LLMs) has amplified concerns regarding their inherent biases, raising critical questions about their fairness, safety, and societal impact. However, quantifying LLM bias remains a fundamental…
LLMs are increasingly embedded in programming workflows, from code generation to automated code review. Yet, how gendered communication styles interact with LLM-assisted programming and code review remains underexplored. We present a…
Adopting human and large language models (LLM) as judges (a.k.a human- and LLM-as-a-judge) for evaluating the performance of LLMs has recently gained attention. Nonetheless, this approach concurrently introduces potential biases from human…
The emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) as chat assistants capable of generating human-like conversations has amplified the need for robust evaluation methods, particularly for open-ended tasks. Conventional metrics such as EM and F1,…
LLMs-as-a-judge is a recently popularized method which replaces human judgements in task evaluation (Zheng et al. 2024) with automatic evaluation using LLMs. Due to widespread use of RLHF (Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback),…
The explainability of recommender systems has attracted significant attention in academia and industry. Many efforts have been made for explainable recommendations, yet evaluating the quality of the explanations remains a challenging and…
Human preference judgments are pivotal in guiding large language models (LLMs) to produce outputs that align with human values. Human evaluations are also used in summarization tasks to compare outputs from various systems, complementing…
We present the first systematic evaluation examining format bias in performance of large language models (LLMs). Our approach distinguishes between two categories of an evaluation metric under format constraints to reliably and accurately…