Aligning Human and LLM Judgments: Insights from EvalAssist on Task-Specific Evaluations and AI-assisted Assessment Strategy Preferences
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This research paper examines how to align human and large language model (LLM) judgments on task-specific evaluations.
- The authors present insights from their EvalAssist tool, which helps humans and LLMs collaborate on assessment strategies.
- The study explores preferences for AI-assisted assessment approaches and the factors that influence them.
Plain English Explanation
Evaluating the performance of artificial intelligence (AI) systems can be challenging, as the judgments of humans and AI models don't always align. The research paper explores ways to bridge this gap by presenting insights from the EvalAssist tool, which helps humans and large language models (LLMs) - a type of advanced AI - work together on assessment strategies.
The key idea is to understand the factors that influence whether people prefer to use AI-assisted evaluation methods or rely solely on their own judgments. For example, some people may trust their own opinions more, while others may find AI tools helpful. The researchers conducted experiments to understand these preferences and how they vary across different types of tasks.
By aligning human and LLM evaluations, the goal is to develop more reliable and consistent ways to assess the performance of AI systems. This is important as AI becomes more prevalent in our lives, from personal assistants to decision-making tools. Ensuring these systems are working as intended requires careful evaluation.
Technical Explanation
The research paper presents a study on "Aligning Human and LLM Judgments" using the EvalAssist tool. EvalAssist is designed to facilitate collaboration between humans and LLMs on task-specific evaluations, allowing them to align their judgments and preferences for different assessment strategies.
The researchers conducted experiments to understand people's preferences for AI-assisted evaluation approaches versus relying solely on their own judgments. They examined factors such as task type, familiarity with the topic, and trust in the AI system. The findings suggest that people's preferences can vary based on the specific context and their individual characteristics.
The paper also discusses the implications of these insights for developing more effective and trustworthy AI evaluation methods. By understanding the factors that influence human-LLM alignment, the researchers aim to create assessment strategies that leverage the strengths of both human and machine intelligence.
Critical Analysis
The research paper provides valuable insights into the challenges of aligning human and LLM judgments, and the potential of tools like EvalAssist to address these challenges. However, the paper acknowledges some limitations, such as the need for further research to better understand the nuances of human-LLM collaboration and the generalizability of the findings across different types of tasks and populations.
Additionally, the paper does not delve deeply into potential biases or limitations of the LLM models used in the study, which could influence the reliability of the AI-assisted assessment strategies. It would be helpful to see a more critical examination of these potential issues and how they might be mitigated.
Overall, the research paper offers an important step towards developing more robust and trustworthy methods for evaluating AI systems. By continuing to explore the dynamics of human-LLM collaboration, researchers can work to ensure that AI evaluation processes are transparent, reliable, and aligned with human values and judgments.
Conclusion
The research paper presents a valuable exploration of the challenges and opportunities in aligning human and LLM judgments on task-specific evaluations. The insights from the EvalAssist tool suggest that people's preferences for AI-assisted assessment strategies can vary based on factors like task type and personal characteristics.
By understanding these preferences and the factors that influence them, the researchers aim to develop more effective and trustworthy methods for evaluating the performance of AI systems. As AI becomes increasingly prevalent in our lives, the ability to reliably assess the capabilities and limitations of these technologies is crucial for ensuring they are aligned with human values and interests.
While the paper acknowledges some limitations, it offers an important step forward in bridging the gap between human and machine intelligence in the context of AI evaluation. Continued research in this area could lead to significant advancements in building AI systems that are transparent, reliable, and truly beneficial to society.
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
0
New!Aligning Human and LLM Judgments: Insights from EvalAssist on Task-Specific Evaluations and AI-assisted Assessment Strategy Preferences
Zahra Ashktorab, Michael Desmond, Qian Pan, James M. Johnson, Martin Santillan Cooper, Elizabeth M. Daly, Rahul Nair, Tejaswini Pedapati, Swapnaja Achintalwar, Werner Geyer
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 used as evaluators to filter training data, evaluate model performance or assist human evaluators with detailed assessments. To support this process, effective front-end tools are critical for evaluation. Two common approaches for using LLMs as evaluators are direct assessment and pairwise comparison. In our study with machine learning practitioners (n=15), each completing 6 tasks yielding 131 evaluations, we explore how task-related factors and assessment strategies influence criteria refinement and user perceptions. Findings show that users performed more evaluations with direct assessment by making criteria task-specific, modifying judgments, and changing the evaluator model. We conclude with recommendations for how systems can better support interactions in LLM-assisted evaluations.
Read more10/2/2024
0
Human-Centered Design Recommendations for LLM-as-a-Judge
Qian Pan, Zahra Ashktorab, Michael Desmond, Martin Santillan Cooper, James Johnson, Rahul Nair, Elizabeth Daly, Werner Geyer
Traditional reference-based metrics, such as BLEU and ROUGE, are less effective for assessing outputs from Large Language Models (LLMs) that produce highly creative or superior-quality text, or in situations where reference outputs are unavailable. While human evaluation remains an option, it is costly and difficult to scale. Recent work using LLMs as evaluators (LLM-as-a-judge) is promising, but trust and reliability remain a significant concern. Integrating human input is crucial to ensure criteria used to evaluate are aligned with the human's intent, and evaluations are robust and consistent. This paper presents a user study of a design exploration called EvaluLLM, that enables users to leverage LLMs as customizable judges, promoting human involvement to balance trust and cost-saving potential with caution. Through interviews with eight domain experts, we identified the need for assistance in developing effective evaluation criteria aligning the LLM-as-a-judge with practitioners' preferences and expectations. We offer findings and design recommendations to optimize human-assisted LLM-as-judge systems.
Read more7/8/2024
0
Evaluating the Evaluator: Measuring LLMs' Adherence to Task Evaluation Instructions
Bhuvanashree Murugadoss, Christian Poelitz, Ian Drosos, Vu Le, Nick McKenna, Carina Suzana Negreanu, Chris Parnin, Advait Sarkar
LLMs-as-a-judge is a recently popularized method which replaces human judgements in task evaluation (Zheng et al. 2024) with automatic evaluation using LLMs. Due to widespread use of RLHF (Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback), state-of-the-art LLMs like GPT4 and Llama3 are expected to have strong alignment with human preferences when prompted for a quality judgement, such as the coherence of a text. While this seems beneficial, it is not clear whether the assessments by an LLM-as-a-judge constitute only an evaluation based on the instructions in the prompts, or reflect its preference for high-quality data similar to its fine-tune data. To investigate how much influence prompting the LLMs-as-a-judge has on the alignment of AI judgements to human judgements, we analyze prompts with increasing levels of instructions about the target quality of an evaluation, for several LLMs-as-a-judge. Further, we compare to a prompt-free method using model perplexity as a quality measure instead. We aggregate a taxonomy of quality criteria commonly used across state-of-the-art evaluations with LLMs and provide this as a rigorous benchmark of models as judges. Overall, we show that the LLMs-as-a-judge benefit only little from highly detailed instructions in prompts and that perplexity can sometimes align better with human judgements than prompting, especially on textual quality.
Read more8/19/2024
0
Systematic Evaluation of LLM-as-a-Judge in LLM Alignment Tasks: Explainable Metrics and Diverse Prompt Templates
Hui Wei, Shenghua He, Tian Xia, Andy Wong, Jingyang Lin, Mei Han
Alignment approaches such as RLHF and DPO are actively investigated to align large language models (LLMs) with human preferences. Commercial large language models (LLMs) like GPT-4 have been recently employed to evaluate and compare different LLM alignment approaches. These models act as surrogates for human evaluators due to their promising abilities to approximate human preferences with remarkably faster feedback and lower costs. This methodology is referred to as LLM-as-a-judge. However, concerns regarding its reliability have emerged, attributed to LLM judges' biases and inconsistent decision-making. Previous research has sought to develop robust evaluation frameworks for assessing the reliability of LLM judges and their alignment with human preferences. However, the employed evaluation metrics often lack adequate explainability and fail to address the internal inconsistency of LLMs. Additionally, existing studies inadequately explore the impact of various prompt templates when applying LLM-as-a-judge methods, which leads to potentially inconsistent comparisons between different alignment algorithms. In this work, we systematically evaluate LLM judges on alignment tasks (e.g. summarization) by defining evaluation metrics with improved theoretical interpretability and disentangling reliability metrics with LLM internal inconsistency. We develop a framework to evaluate, compare, and visualize the reliability and alignment of LLM judges to provide informative observations that help choose LLM judges for alignment tasks. Our results indicate a significant impact of prompt templates on LLM judge performance, as well as a mediocre alignment level between the tested LLM judges and human evaluators.
Read more8/26/2024