Replacing Judges with Juries: Evaluating LLM Generations with a Panel of Diverse Models

2404.18796

YC

47

Reddit

1

Published 5/2/2024 by Pat Verga, Sebastian Hofstatter, Sophia Althammer, Yixuan Su, Aleksandra Piktus, Arkady Arkhangorodsky, Minjie Xu, Naomi White, Patrick Lewis

🤷

Abstract

As Large Language Models (LLMs) have become more advanced, they have outpaced our abilities to accurately evaluate their quality. Not only is finding data to adequately probe particular model properties difficult, but evaluating the correctness of a model's freeform generation alone is a challenge. To address this, many evaluations now rely on using LLMs themselves as judges to score the quality of outputs from other LLMs. Evaluations most commonly use a single large model like GPT4. While this method has grown in popularity, it is costly, has been shown to introduce intramodel bias, and in this work, we find that very large models are often unnecessary. We propose instead to evaluate models using a Panel of LLm evaluators (PoLL). Across three distinct judge settings and spanning six different datasets, we find that using a PoLL composed of a larger number of smaller models outperforms a single large judge, exhibits less intra-model bias due to its composition of disjoint model families, and does so while being over seven times less expensive.

Get summaries of the top AI research delivered straight to your inbox:

Overview

  • As large language models (LLMs) become more advanced, evaluating their quality has become increasingly challenging.
  • Traditional evaluation methods that rely on human judges or specific datasets have limitations, and using LLMs themselves as judges has become more common.
  • However, using a single large model as a judge can be costly and introduce biases.
  • This paper proposes an alternative approach called a Panel of LLM evaluators (PoLL), which uses a group of smaller models to judge the quality of other LLM outputs.

Plain English Explanation

The paper discusses the difficulty of accurately evaluating the performance of large language models, which are highly advanced artificial intelligence systems that can generate human-like text. As these models become more sophisticated, it has become increasingly challenging to assess their quality and capabilities.

Traditional evaluation methods, such as using human judges or specific datasets, have limitations. For example, it can be difficult to find data that adequately tests particular model properties. Additionally, evaluating the correctness of a model's free-form generation is a complex task.

To address these challenges, many evaluations now use LLMs themselves as judges to score the quality of outputs from other LLMs. This method has gained popularity, but it is costly and has been shown to introduce biases within the model being used as the judge.

The researchers propose an alternative approach called a Panel of LLM evaluators (PoLL), which uses a group of smaller LLMs, rather than a single large model, to judge the quality of other LLMs. The key idea is that by using a diverse set of models, the panel can provide a more balanced and objective assessment, while also being more cost-effective than relying on a single large model.

Technical Explanation

The paper explores the limitations of using a single large language model as a judge to evaluate the performance of other LLMs. While this approach has become more common, the authors find that it can be costly and introduce biases within the judging model.

To address these issues, the researchers propose a Panel of LLM evaluators (PoLL) as an alternative. The PoLL approach uses a group of smaller LLMs, rather than a single large model, to judge the quality of outputs from other LLMs.

The authors conduct experiments across three different judge settings and six distinct datasets, comparing the performance of a PoLL to a single large judge model. Their results show that the PoLL approach outperforms the single large judge model, exhibiting less intra-model bias due to its composition of diverse model families. Importantly, the PoLL is also found to be over seven times less expensive to implement than the single large judge model.

Critical Analysis

The paper presents a compelling case for using a Panel of LLM evaluators (PoLL) to address the limitations of relying on a single large model as a judge. The authors' experiments demonstrate the advantages of the PoLL approach in terms of reduced biases and lower costs.

However, the paper does not fully explore the potential drawbacks or limitations of the PoLL approach. For example, it would be interesting to understand how the performance of the PoLL might be affected by the specific composition and diversity of the models included in the panel. Additionally, the paper does not discuss the potential challenges of coordinating and aggregating the judgments of multiple LLMs, which could introduce additional complexities.

It would also be valuable to see the authors' thoughts on the broader implications of their findings, such as how the PoLL approach could be applied to other areas of AI research and development beyond model evaluation. Evaluating large language models at evaluating instruction and Large language models perform par experts identifying are two relevant areas that could benefit from the insights presented in this paper.

Overall, the paper presents a promising and thoughtful approach to addressing the challenges of LLM evaluation, and the authors have made a valuable contribution to the field. Further research and discussion on the nuances and potential applications of the PoLL method would be valuable.

Conclusion

This paper proposes a novel approach to evaluating the performance of large language models (LLMs) called a Panel of LLM evaluators (PoLL). The key insight is that using a diverse group of smaller LLMs as judges, rather than a single large model, can provide a more balanced and cost-effective evaluation.

The authors' experiments demonstrate that the PoLL approach outperforms using a single large judge model, exhibiting less intra-model bias and being significantly less expensive to implement. These findings have important implications for the evaluation of large language models and multimodal LLMs, as well as for the broader development and deployment of advanced AI systems.

The PoLL method represents a promising step forward in addressing the challenges of accurately evaluating the quality and capabilities of LLMs, which will become increasingly important as these models continue to advance and play a more prominent role in our lives.



This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!

Related Papers

Large Language Models are Inconsistent and Biased Evaluators

Large Language Models are Inconsistent and Biased Evaluators

Rickard Stureborg, Dimitris Alikaniotis, Yoshi Suhara

YC

0

Reddit

0

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 understudied; existing work mainly pursued optimal performance in terms of correlating LLM scores with human expert scores. In this paper, we conduct a series of analyses using the SummEval dataset and confirm that LLMs are biased evaluators as they: (1) exhibit familiarity bias-a preference for text with lower perplexity, (2) show skewed and biased distributions of ratings, and (3) experience anchoring effects for multi-attribute judgments. We also found that LLMs are inconsistent evaluators, showing low inter-sample agreement and sensitivity to prompt differences that are insignificant to human understanding of text quality. Furthermore, we share recipes for configuring LLM evaluators to mitigate these limitations. Experimental results on the RoSE dataset demonstrate improvements over the state-of-the-art LLM evaluators.

Read more

5/6/2024

💬

Large Language Models on Wikipedia-Style Survey Generation: an Evaluation in NLP Concepts

Fan Gao, Hang Jiang, Rui Yang, Qingcheng Zeng, Jinghui Lu, Moritz Blum, Dairui Liu, Tianwei She, Yuang Jiang, Irene Li

YC

0

Reddit

0

Educational materials such as survey articles in specialized fields like computer science traditionally require tremendous expert inputs and are therefore expensive to create and update. Recently, Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved significant success across various general tasks. However, their effectiveness and limitations in the education domain are yet to be fully explored. In this work, we examine the proficiency of LLMs in generating succinct survey articles specific to the niche field of NLP in computer science, focusing on a curated list of 99 topics. Automated benchmarks reveal that GPT-4 surpasses its predecessors, inluding GPT-3.5, PaLM2, and LLaMa2 by margins ranging from 2% to 20% in comparison to the established ground truth. We compare both human and GPT-based evaluation scores and provide in-depth analysis. While our findings suggest that GPT-created surveys are more contemporary and accessible than human-authored ones, certain limitations were observed. Notably, GPT-4, despite often delivering outstanding content, occasionally exhibited lapses like missing details or factual errors. At last, we compared the rating behavior between humans and GPT-4 and found systematic bias in using GPT evaluation.

Read more

5/24/2024

The Effectiveness of LLMs as Annotators: A Comparative Overview and Empirical Analysis of Direct Representation

The Effectiveness of LLMs as Annotators: A Comparative Overview and Empirical Analysis of Direct Representation

Maja Pavlovic, Massimo Poesio

YC

0

Reddit

0

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as powerful support tools across various natural language tasks and a range of application domains. Recent studies focus on exploring their capabilities for data annotation. This paper provides a comparative overview of twelve studies investigating the potential of LLMs in labelling data. While the models demonstrate promising cost and time-saving benefits, there exist considerable limitations, such as representativeness, bias, sensitivity to prompt variations and English language preference. Leveraging insights from these studies, our empirical analysis further examines the alignment between human and GPT-generated opinion distributions across four subjective datasets. In contrast to the studies examining representation, our methodology directly obtains the opinion distribution from GPT. Our analysis thereby supports the minority of studies that are considering diverse perspectives when evaluating data annotation tasks and highlights the need for further research in this direction.

Read more

5/3/2024

METAL: Towards Multilingual Meta-Evaluation

METAL: Towards Multilingual Meta-Evaluation

Rishav Hada, Varun Gumma, Mohamed Ahmed, Kalika Bali, Sunayana Sitaram

YC

0

Reddit

0

With the rising human-like precision of Large Language Models (LLMs) in numerous tasks, their utilization in a variety of real-world applications is becoming more prevalent. Several studies have shown that LLMs excel on many standard NLP benchmarks. However, it is challenging to evaluate LLMs due to test dataset contamination and the limitations of traditional metrics. Since human evaluations are difficult to collect, there is a growing interest in the community to use LLMs themselves as reference-free evaluators for subjective metrics. However, past work has shown that LLM-based evaluators can exhibit bias and have poor alignment with human judgments. In this study, we propose a framework for an end-to-end assessment of LLMs as evaluators in multilingual scenarios. We create a carefully curated dataset, covering 10 languages containing native speaker judgments for the task of summarization. This dataset is created specifically to evaluate LLM-based evaluators, which we refer to as meta-evaluation (METAL). We compare the performance of LLM-based evaluators created using GPT-3.5-Turbo, GPT-4, and PaLM2. Our results indicate that LLM-based evaluators based on GPT-4 perform the best across languages, while GPT-3.5-Turbo performs poorly. Additionally, we perform an analysis of the reasoning provided by LLM-based evaluators and find that it often does not match the reasoning provided by human judges.

Read more

4/3/2024