Auto Arena of LLMs: Automating LLM Evaluations with Agent Peer-battles and Committee Discussions
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- Introduces a new framework called the "Auto Arena" for automating the evaluation of large language models (LLMs) through agent peer-battles and committee discussions.
- Aims to provide a scalable and efficient way to assess the performance and capabilities of LLMs compared to human raters.
- Builds on previous work in LLM evaluation and agent-based AI systems.
Plain English Explanation
The research paper presents a new system called the "Auto Arena" that automates the evaluation of large language models (LLMs). LLMs are a type of artificial intelligence that can understand and generate human-like text. Evaluating the performance of LLMs is crucial, but it can be time-consuming and expensive when done manually by human raters.
The Auto Arena framework addresses this by using a competitive, peer-review style approach. It pits different LLM agents against each other in head-to-head "battles" on various tasks. The agents assess each other's responses and provide feedback, similar to how a committee of experts might discuss and evaluate a research paper. This allows for a more scalable and efficient evaluation process compared to relying solely on human raters.
The paper builds on previous work in the field of LLM evaluation and agent-based AI systems. The goal is to provide a more robust and comprehensive way to assess the capabilities of LLMs, which are becoming increasingly important in various applications such as language generation, question answering, and task completion.
Technical Explanation
The "Auto Arena" framework proposed in the paper automates the evaluation of large language models (LLMs) through a two-stage process:
-
Agent Peer-battles: The system pits different LLM agents against each other on a variety of tasks. Each agent assesses the responses of the other agents and provides feedback, similar to how a peer-review process works.
-
Committee Discussions: The feedback from the agent peer-battles is then aggregated and discussed by a "committee" of agents. This committee evaluates the overall performance of each LLM agent and provides a final assessment.
The key elements of the Auto Arena framework include:
- LLM Agents: The individual LLM models that participate in the peer-battles and committee discussions.
- Task Design: The specific tasks and prompts used to evaluate the LLM agents' capabilities.
- Feedback and Scoring: The mechanisms by which the agents assess each other's responses and provide scores or feedback.
- Committee Deliberation: The process by which the committee of agents discusses and arrives at a final evaluation of each LLM agent.
The authors demonstrate the effectiveness of the Auto Arena framework through a series of experiments, comparing the evaluations produced by the system to those of human raters. The results suggest that the Auto Arena can provide a scalable and efficient way to assess LLM performance, while maintaining a level of consistency and objectivity.
Critical Analysis
The Auto Arena framework presented in the paper addresses an important challenge in the field of LLM evaluation. By automating the evaluation process and leveraging agent-based peer-review, the system aims to overcome the limitations of manual human evaluation, which can be time-consuming and prone to individual biases.
However, the paper does acknowledge some potential limitations and areas for further research:
-
Task Design: The selection and design of the tasks used to evaluate the LLM agents is crucial to the validity of the system. The paper discusses the importance of crafting tasks that are representative of real-world applications, but more research may be needed to ensure the tasks are comprehensive and unbiased.
-
Feedback Mechanisms: The methods by which the LLM agents assess each other's responses and provide feedback are critical to the effectiveness of the peer-review process. The paper outlines some approaches, but more work may be needed to ensure the feedback is reliable and consistent across agents.
-
Committee Deliberation: The process by which the committee of agents arrives at a final evaluation of each LLM is an area that could benefit from further exploration. The paper mentions the use of aggregation and discussion, but the specific mechanisms and their impact on the overall assessment require additional investigation.
-
Alignment with Human Evaluations: While the paper compares the Auto Arena's assessments to those of human raters, more research may be needed to fully understand the alignment between the automated and human evaluations. Potential discrepancies or biases in either approach should be carefully examined.
Overall, the Auto Arena framework represents an important step towards more scalable and efficient LLM evaluation. By leveraging agent-based peer-review and committee discussions, the system has the potential to complement and enhance traditional human-based evaluation methods. However, as with any new approach, further research and refinement will be necessary to ensure the system's reliability, validity, and broader applicability in the field of large language model assessment.
Conclusion
The "Auto Arena" framework presented in this paper offers a novel approach to automating the evaluation of large language models (LLMs). By pitting LLM agents against each other in competitive peer-battles and leveraging a committee-style discussion process, the system aims to provide a more scalable and efficient way to assess the performance and capabilities of these AI models.
The key innovation of the Auto Arena is its ability to leverage agent-based peer-review and deliberation, which can potentially overcome the limitations of manual human evaluation. This addresses an important challenge in the field of LLM assessment, as the growing complexity and proliferation of these models make traditional evaluation methods increasingly resource-intensive and prone to individual biases.
While the paper outlines the core components and initial experiments of the Auto Arena, it also acknowledges areas for further research and refinement, such as task design, feedback mechanisms, and alignment with human evaluations. Addressing these challenges will be crucial to ensuring the system's reliability, validity, and broader applicability in the assessment of large language models.
Overall, the Auto Arena framework represents an important step forward in the quest to develop more robust and scalable methods for evaluating the capabilities of large language models, which are becoming increasingly crucial in a wide range of applications. As the field of AI continues to evolve, tools like the Auto Arena may play a vital role in helping researchers, developers, and end-users better understand and harness the potential of these powerful language models.
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
Auto Arena of LLMs: Automating LLM Evaluations with Agent Peer-battles and Committee Discussions
Ruochen Zhao, Wenxuan Zhang, Yew Ken Chia, Deli Zhao, Lidong Bing
As LLMs evolve on a daily basis, there is an urgent need for a trustworthy evaluation method that can provide robust evaluation results in a timely fashion. Currently, as static benchmarks are prone to contamination concerns, users tend to trust human voting platforms, such as Chatbot Arena. However, human annotations require extensive manual efforts. To provide an automatic, robust, and trustworthy evaluation framework, we innovatively propose the Auto-Arena of LLMs, which automates the entire evaluation process with LLM agents. Firstly, an examiner LLM devises queries. Then, a pair of candidate LLMs engage in a multi-round peer-battle around the query, during which the LLM's true performance gaps become visible. Finally, a committee of LLM judges collectively discuss and determine the winner, which alleviates bias and promotes fairness. In our extensive experiment on the 17 newest LLMs, Auto-Arena shows the highest correlation with human preferences, providing a promising alternative to human evaluation platforms.
Read more6/13/2024
0
AI-Driven Review Systems: Evaluating LLMs in Scalable and Bias-Aware Academic Reviews
Keith Tyser, Ben Segev, Gaston Longhitano, Xin-Yu Zhang, Zachary Meeks, Jason Lee, Uday Garg, Nicholas Belsten, Avi Shporer, Madeleine Udell, Dov Te'eni, Iddo Drori
Automatic reviewing helps handle a large volume of papers, provides early feedback and quality control, reduces bias, and allows the analysis of trends. We evaluate the alignment of automatic paper reviews with human reviews using an arena of human preferences by pairwise comparisons. Gathering human preference may be time-consuming; therefore, we also use an LLM to automatically evaluate reviews to increase sample efficiency while reducing bias. In addition to evaluating human and LLM preferences among LLM reviews, we fine-tune an LLM to predict human preferences, predicting which reviews humans will prefer in a head-to-head battle between LLMs. We artificially introduce errors into papers and analyze the LLM's responses to identify limitations, use adaptive review questions, meta prompting, role-playing, integrate visual and textual analysis, use venue-specific reviewing materials, and predict human preferences, improving upon the limitations of the traditional review processes. We make the reviews of publicly available arXiv and open-access Nature journal papers available online, along with a free service which helps authors review and revise their research papers and improve their quality. This work develops proof-of-concept LLM reviewing systems that quickly deliver consistent, high-quality reviews and evaluate their quality. We mitigate the risks of misuse, inflated review scores, overconfident ratings, and skewed score distributions by augmenting the LLM with multiple documents, including the review form, reviewer guide, code of ethics and conduct, area chair guidelines, and previous year statistics, by finding which errors and shortcomings of the paper may be detected by automated reviews, and evaluating pairwise reviewer preferences. This work identifies and addresses the limitations of using LLMs as reviewers and evaluators and enhances the quality of the reviewing process.
Read more8/21/2024
📶
0
Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is: Evaluating Strategic Planning and Execution of LLM Agents in an Auction Arena
Jiangjie Chen, Siyu Yuan, Rong Ye, Bodhisattwa Prasad Majumder, Kyle Richardson
Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) showcase advanced reasoning, yet NLP evaluations often depend on static benchmarks. Evaluating this necessitates environments that test strategic reasoning in dynamic, competitive scenarios requiring long-term planning. We introduce AucArena, a novel evaluation suite that simulates auctions, a setting chosen for being highly unpredictable and involving many skills related to resource and risk management, while also being easy to evaluate. We conduct controlled experiments using state-of-the-art LLMs to power bidding agents to benchmark their planning and execution skills. Our research demonstrates that LLMs, such as GPT-4, possess key skills for auction participation, such as budget management and goal adherence, which improve with adaptive strategies. This highlights LLMs' potential in modeling complex social interactions in competitive contexts. However, variability in LLM performance and occasional outperformance by simpler methods indicate opportunities for further advancements in LLM design and the value of our simulation environment for ongoing testing and refinement.
Read more8/27/2024
0
Arena Learning: Build Data Flywheel for LLMs Post-training via Simulated Chatbot Arena
Haipeng Luo, Qingfeng Sun, Can Xu, Pu Zhao, Qingwei Lin, Jianguang Lou, Shifeng Chen, Yansong Tang, Weizhu Chen
Assessing the effectiveness of large language models (LLMs) presents substantial challenges. The method of conducting human-annotated battles in an online Chatbot Arena is a highly effective evaluative technique. However, this approach is limited by the costs and time required for human annotation. In this paper, we introduce Arena Learning, an innovative offline strategy designed to simulate these arena battles using AI-driven annotations to evaluate battle outcomes, thus facilitating the continuous improvement of the target model through both supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning. Arena Learning comprises two key elements. First, it ensures precise evaluations and maintains consistency between offline simulations and online competitions via WizardArena, a pipeline developed to accurately predict the Elo rankings of various models using a meticulously designed offline test set. Our results demonstrate that WizardArena's predictions closely align with those from the online Arena. Second, it involves the continuous improvement of training data based on the battle results and the refined model. We establish a data flywheel to iteratively update the training data by highlighting the weaknesses of the target model based on its battle results, enabling it to learn from the strengths of multiple different models. We apply Arena Learning to train our target model, WizardLM-$beta$, and demonstrate significant performance enhancements across various metrics. This fully automated training and evaluation pipeline sets the stage for continuous advancements in various LLMs via post-training. Notably, Arena Learning plays a pivotal role in the success of WizardLM-2, and this paper serves both as an exploration of its efficacy and a foundational study for future discussions related to WizardLM-2 and its derivatives.
Read more7/16/2024