Related papers: LLM-as-Judge on a Budget

The potential of using Large Language Models (LLMs) themselves to evaluate LLM outputs offers a promising method for assessing model performance across various contexts. Previous research indicates that LLM-as-a-judge exhibits a strong…

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) 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…

Large language models (LLMs) have been adopted to solve sequential decision-making tasks such as multi-armed bandits (MAB), in which an LLM is directly instructed to select the arms to pull in every iteration. However, this paradigm of…

LLM-as-a-Judge has been widely applied to evaluate and compare different LLM alignmnet approaches (e.g., RLHF and DPO). However, concerns regarding its reliability have emerged, due to LLM judges' biases and inconsistent decision-making.…

Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have incentivized the development of LLM-as-a-judge, an application of LLMs where they are used as judges to decide the quality of a certain piece of text given a certain context. However,…

Evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) often requires costly human annotations. To address this, LLM-based judges have been proposed, which compare the outputs of two LLMs enabling the ranking of models without human intervention. While…

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as automated evaluators, yet prior works demonstrate that these LLM judges often lack consistency in scoring when the prompt is altered. However, the effect of the grading scale itself…

LLMs are increasingly employed both as judges for evaluating open-ended outputs and as co-creation partners in AI-assisted programming; yet rigorous evaluation in human-AI co-creation settings remains underdeveloped as judgments must be…

Recently, the number of off-the-shelf Large Language Models (LLMs) has exploded with many open-source options. This creates a diverse landscape regarding both serving options (e.g., inference on local hardware vs remote LLM APIs) and model…

Large language models (LLMs) achieve state-of-the-art accuracy on complex reasoning tasks by generating multiple chain-of-thought (CoT) traces, but using a fixed token budget per query leads to over-computation on easy inputs and…

LLM-as-a-Judge models generate chain-of-thought (CoT) sequences intended to capture the step-bystep reasoning process that underlies the final evaluation of a response. However, due to the lack of human annotated CoTs for evaluation, the…

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly employed as evaluators (LLM-as-a-Judge) for assessing the quality of machine-generated text. This paradigm offers scalability and cost-effectiveness compared to human annotation. However, the…

We propose LLM-PeerReview, an unsupervised LLM Ensemble method that selects the most ideal response from multiple LLM-generated candidates for each query, harnessing the collective wisdom of multiple models with diverse strengths.…

The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) has driven their expanding application across various fields. One of the most promising applications is their role as evaluators based on natural language responses, referred to as…

The trade-off between labeled data availability and downstream accuracy remains a central challenge in fine-tuning large language models (LLMs). We propose a principled framework for \emph{budget-aware supervised fine-tuning} by casting LLM…

As qualitative researchers show growing interest in using automated tools to support interpretive analysis, a large language model (LLM) is often introduced into an analytic workflow as is, without systematic evaluation of interpretive…

LLM-as-a-Judge has emerged as a promising alternative to human evaluators across various tasks, yet inherent biases - particularly position bias, the tendency to favor solutions based on their position within the prompt - compromise its…

Evaluation of large language model (LLM) outputs requires users to make critical judgments about the best outputs across various configurations. This process is costly and takes time given the large amounts of data. LLMs are increasingly…

[Abridged] Using a Large Language Model (LLM) as an automatic rater (LLM-as-a-judge) is cheap but potentially biased: some judges run lenient, others strict, the middle of the scale gets compressed, and verbose answers may be over-rewarded.…