Related papers: Beyond the Surface: Measuring Self-Preference in L…

Employing Large Language Models (LLMs) to assess the quality of generated responses, such as prompting instruct-tuned models or fine-tuning judge models, has become a widely adopted evaluation method. It is also known that such evaluators…

As Large Language Models (LLMs) have become more advanced, they have outpaced our abilities to accurately evaluate their quality. Not only is finding data to adequately probe particular model properties difficult, but evaluating the…

Preference alignment via reward models helps build safe, helpful, and reliable large language models (LLMs). However, subjectivity in preference judgments and the lack of representative sampling in preference data collection can introduce…

Nowadays, the quality of responses generated by different modern large language models (LLMs) is hard to evaluate and compare automatically. Recent studies suggest and predominantly use LLMs for reference-free evaluation of open-ended…

Despite the rapid progress of large language models (LLMs), their task performance remains sensitive to prompt design. Recent studies have explored leveraging the LLM itself as an optimizer to identify optimal prompts that maximize task…

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…

LLM-as-Judge has emerged as a scalable alternative to human evaluation, enabling large language models (LLMs) to provide reward signals in trainings. While recent work has explored multi-agent extensions such as multi-agent debate and…

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed via public-facing interfaces to interact with millions of users, each with diverse preferences. Despite this, preference tuning of LLMs predominantly relies on reward models trained…

Recently, there has been a growing trend of utilizing Large Language Model (LLM) to evaluate the quality of other LLMs. Many studies have fine-tuned judge models based on open-source LLMs for evaluation. While the fine-tuned judge models…

Large language models (LLMs) are playing an increasingly integral, though largely informal, role in scholarly peer review. Yet it remains unclear whether LLMs reproduce the biases observed in human decision-making. We adapt a resume-style…

Applying large language models (LLMs) to assist in psycho-counseling is an emerging and meaningful approach, driven by the significant gap between patient needs and the availability of mental health support. However, current LLMs struggle…

Large language models (LLMs) have become a standard for multilingual evaluation, yet they exhibit a severe systematic translationese bias. In this paper, translationese bias is characterized as LLMs systematically favoring…

Ensuring that large language models (LLMs) reflect diverse user values and preferences is crucial as their user bases expand globally. It is therefore encouraging to see the growing interest in LLM personalization within the research…

Recent studies have demonstrated that some Large Language Models exhibit choice-supportive bias (CSB) when performing evaluations, systematically favoring their chosen options and potentially compromising the objectivity of AI-assisted…

In this study, we investigate the capabilities and inherent biases of advanced large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 in the context of debate evaluation. We discover that LLM's performance exceeds humans and surpasses the…

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…

Using language models to scalably approximate human preferences on text quality (LLM-as-a-judge) has become a standard practice applicable to many tasks. A judgment is often extracted from the judge's textual output alone, typically with…

We introduce GAIN (Goal-Aligned Decision-Making under Imperfect Norms), a benchmark designed to evaluate how large language models (LLMs) balance adherence to norms against business goals. Existing benchmarks typically focus on abstract…

Automatic evaluation of generated textual content presents an ongoing challenge within the field of NLP. Given the impressive capabilities of modern language models (LMs) across diverse NLP tasks, there is a growing trend to employ these…

LLM-as-a-Judge has been widely utilized as an evaluation method in various benchmarks and served as supervised rewards in model training. However, despite their excellence in many domains, potential issues are under-explored, undermining…