Related papers: When LLMs Benchmark Themselves: Deconstructing Sel…

Recent studies show that large language models (LLMs) improve their performance through self-feedback on certain tasks while degrade on others. We discovered that such a contrary is due to LLM's bias in evaluating their own output. In this…

Large language models (LLMs) can serve as judges that offer rapid and reliable assessments of other LLM outputs. However, models may systematically assign overly favorable ratings to their own outputs, a phenomenon known as self-bias, which…

LLM-as-Benchmark-Generator methods have been widely studied as a supplement to human annotators for scalable evaluation, while the potential biases within this paradigm remain underexplored. In this work, we systematically define and…

Self-evaluation using large language models (LLMs) has proven valuable not only in benchmarking but also methods like reward modeling, constitutional AI, and self-refinement. But new biases are introduced due to the same LLM acting as both…

Large Language Models (LLMs) have excelled at language understanding and generating human-level text. However, even with supervised training and human alignment, these LLMs are susceptible to adversarial attacks where malicious users can…

We present AutoBench, a fully automated and self-sustaining framework for evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) through reciprocal peer assessment. This paper provides a rigorous scientific validation of the AutoBench methodology,…

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…

Recently, researchers have made considerable improvements in dialogue systems with the progress of large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT and GPT-4. These LLM-based chatbots encode the potential biases while retaining disparities that…

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…

The adoption of large language models (LLMs) is transforming the peer review process, from assisting reviewers in writing detailed evaluations to generating entire reviews automatically. While these capabilities offer new opportunities,…

Current benchmarks for evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) often do not exhibit enough writing style diversity, with many adhering primarily to standardized conventions. Such benchmarks do not fully capture the rich variety of…

Can LLMs consistently improve their previous outputs for better results? For this to be true, LLMs would need to be better at discriminating among previously-generated alternatives, than generating initial responses. We explore the validity…

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as automatic evaluators in applications such as benchmarking, reward modeling, and self-refinement. Prior work highlights a potential self-preference bias where LLMs favor their own…

"LLM-as-a-judge," which utilizes large language models (LLMs) as evaluators, has proven effective in many evaluation tasks. However, evaluator LLMs exhibit numerical bias, a phenomenon where certain evaluation scores are generated…

Evaluating large language models typically relies on human-authored benchmarks, reference answers, and human or single-model judgments, approaches that scale poorly, become quickly outdated, and mismatch open-world deployments that depend…

Benchmarks are the de facto standard for tracking progress in large language models (LLMs), yet static test sets can rapidly saturate, become vulnerable to contamination, and are costly to refresh. Scalable evaluation of open-ended items…

Large language models (LLMs) are commonly evaluated on tasks that test their knowledge or reasoning abilities. In this paper, we explore a different type of evaluation: whether an LLM can predict aspects of its own responses. Since LLMs…

LLM evaluation is challenging even the case of base models. In real world deployments, evaluation is further complicated by the interplay of task specific prompts and experiential context. At scale, bias evaluation is often based on short…

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,…

Automated evaluation leveraging large language models (LLMs), commonly referred to as LLM evaluators or LLM-as-a-judge, has been widely used in measuring the performance of dialogue systems. However, the self-preference bias in LLMs has…