Related papers: Are LLM Evaluators Really Narcissists? Sanity Chec…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
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…
Language models (LMs) judges are widely used to evaluate the quality of LM outputs. Despite many advantages, LM judges display concerning biases that can impair their integrity in evaluations. One such bias is self-preference: LM judges…
Self-preference is a fundamental feature of biological organisms. Since large language models (LLMs) lack sentience, they might be expected to avoid such distortions. Yet, across 72 experiments and ~41,000 queries, we discovered massive…
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…
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…
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…
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…
Recent studies show that large language models (LLMs) exhibit self-preference bias when serving as judges, meaning they tend to favor their own responses over those generated by other models. Existing methods typically measure this bias by…
As Natural Language Generation (NLG) continues to be widely adopted, properly assessing it has become quite difficult. Lately, using large language models (LLMs) for evaluating these generations has gained traction, as they tend to align…
Large language models (LLMs) increasingly serve as automated evaluators, yet they suffer from "self-preference bias": a tendency to favor their own outputs over those of other models. This bias undermines fairness and reliability in…
Auto-evaluation is crucial for assessing response quality and offering feedback for model development. Recent studies have explored training large language models (LLMs) as generative judges to evaluate and critique other models' outputs.…
To reduce the need for human annotations, large language models (LLMs) have been proposed as judges of the quality of other candidate models. The performance of LLM judges is typically evaluated by measuring the correlation with human…
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…
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…