Related papers: Curse of Knowledge: When Complex Evaluation Contex…
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…
Offering a promising solution to the scalability challenges associated with human evaluation, the LLM-as-a-judge paradigm is rapidly gaining traction as an approach to evaluating large language models (LLMs). However, there are still many…
Large language models (LLMs) are evolving fast and are now frequently used as evaluators, in a process typically referred to as LLM-as-a-Judge, which provides quality assessments of model outputs. However, recent research points out…
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…
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…
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…
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to evaluate information retrieval (IR) systems, generating relevance judgments traditionally made by human assessors. Recent empirical studies suggest that LLM-based evaluations often align…
Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have been increasingly used as automatic evaluators-a paradigm known as MLLM-as-a-Judge. However, their reliability and vulnerabilities to biases remain underexplored. We find that many MLLM judges…
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 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…
The growing integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) into critical societal domains has raised concerns about embedded biases that can perpetuate stereotypes and undermine fairness. Such biases may stem from historical inequalities in…
While large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities across various natural language processing tasks by acquiring rich factual knowledge from their broad training data, their ability to synthesize and logically…
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 integral to information retrieval (IR), powering ranking, evaluation, and AI-assisted content creation. This widespread adoption necessitates a critical examination of potential biases arising…
Rapid advancements in Large Language models (LLMs) has significantly enhanced their reasoning capabilities. Despite improved performance on benchmarks, LLMs exhibit notable gaps in their cognitive processes. Additionally, as reflections of…
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated great potential for domain-specific applications, such as the law domain. However, recent disputes over GPT-4's law evaluation raise questions concerning their performance in real-world legal…
With the evolution of large language models (LLMs), their robustness against individual simple biases has been enhanced. However, we observe that the ensemble of multiple simple biases still exerts a significant adverse impact on LLMs.…
This paper presents the first systematic comparison investigating whether Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) are superior judges to non-reasoning LLMs. Our empirical analysis yields four key findings: 1) LRMs outperform non-reasoning LLMs in…
While large language models (LLMs) showcase unprecedented capabilities, they also exhibit certain inherent limitations when facing seemingly trivial tasks. A prime example is the recently debated "reversal curse", which surfaces when…
Multi-round incomplete information tasks are crucial for evaluating the lateral thinking capabilities of large language models (LLMs). Currently, research primarily relies on multiple benchmarks and automated evaluation metrics to assess…