Related papers: Self-Preference Bias in Rubric-Based Evaluation of…
LLM-as-a-Judge has become a dominant approach in automated evaluation systems, playing critical roles in model alignment, leaderboard construction, quality control, and so on. However, the scalability and trustworthiness of this approach…
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…
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…
Large language models (LLMs) are now widely used to evaluate the quality of text, a field commonly referred to as LLM-as-a-judge. While prior works mainly focus on point-wise and pair-wise evaluation paradigms. Rubric-based evaluation,…
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…
Evaluation and alignment pipelines for large language models increasingly rely on LLM-based judges, whose behavior is guided by natural-language rubrics and validated on benchmarks. We identify a previously under-recognized vulnerability in…
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…
While many studies of Large Language Model (LLM) reasoning capabilities emphasize mathematical or technical tasks, few address reasoning about social concepts: the abstract ideas shaping social norms, culture, and institutions. This…
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…
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…
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…
Two methodologies dominate current practices of benchmarking: rubric-based scoring evaluates items against predefined criteria, whereas comparative judgment elicits pairwise preferences between outputs. Although both methodologies are…
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…
Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used as proxies for human labelers in both training (Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback) and large-scale response evaluation (LLM-as-a-judge). Alignment and evaluation are critical components in…
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for clinical decision support, where hallucinations and unsafe suggestions may pose direct risks to patient safety. These risks are hard to assess: subtle clinical errors are often missed…
Rubric-based evaluation has become a prevailing paradigm for evaluating instruction following in large language models (LLMs). Despite its widespread use, the reliability of these rubric-level evaluations remains unclear, calling for…
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…
As LLMs rapidly saturate existing benchmarks, automated benchmark creation using LLMs (LLM-as-a-benchmark) -- where a model generates test inputs (LLM-as-a-testset) and evaluates outputs (LLM-as-an-evaluator) -- has gained traction as a…
Recent research has shown that large language models (LLMs) favor their own outputs when acting as judges, undermining the integrity of automated post-training and evaluation workflows. However, it is difficult to disentangle which…
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…