Can LLM be a Personalized Judge?
2406.11657
0
0
Abstract
Ensuring that large language models (LLMs) reflect diverse user values and preferences is crucial as their user bases expand globally. It is therefore encouraging to see the growing interest in LLM personalization within the research community. However, current works often rely on the LLM-as-a-Judge approach for evaluation without thoroughly examining its validity. In this paper, we investigate the reliability of LLM-as-a-Personalized-Judge, asking LLMs to judge user preferences based on personas. Our findings suggest that directly applying LLM-as-a-Personalized-Judge is less reliable than previously assumed, showing low and inconsistent agreement with human ground truth. The personas typically used are often overly simplistic, resulting in low predictive power. To address these issues, we introduce verbal uncertainty estimation into the LLM-as-a-Personalized-Judge pipeline, allowing the model to express low confidence on uncertain judgments. This adjustment leads to much higher agreement (above 80%) on high-certainty samples for binary tasks. Through human evaluation, we find that the LLM-as-a-Personalized-Judge achieves comparable performance to third-party humans evaluation and even surpasses human performance on high-certainty samples. Our work indicates that certainty-enhanced LLM-as-a-Personalized-Judge offers a promising direction for developing more reliable and scalable methods for evaluating LLM personalization.
Create account to get full access
Overview
- This paper explores the potential for large language models (LLMs) to serve as personalized judges in various applications.
- The researchers investigate the ability of LLMs to accurately assess and provide personalized feedback on content, such as written submissions or creative works.
- The paper covers the evaluation of LLM performance, potential limitations of fine-tuned judge models, and the use of LLM-based panels to replace traditional human judges or juries.
Plain English Explanation
The paper examines whether large language models (LLMs) could be used as personalized judges to assess and provide feedback on different types of content, like written submissions or creative works. The researchers explore the capabilities of LLMs in accurately evaluating and providing tailored feedback, which could have applications in areas like education, content moderation, or creative industries.
The paper looks at how LLMs can be evaluated for this task, including potential limitations that may arise when fine-tuning the models for specific judge roles. It also investigates the idea of using LLM-based panels, rather than individual models, to replace traditional human judges or juries in certain contexts. This could potentially offer more consistent, scalable, and personalized evaluation.
The research aims to understand the feasibility and trade-offs of using LLMs as personalized judges, which could have significant implications for how content is assessed and feedback is provided in the future.
Technical Explanation
The paper examines the potential for large language models (LLMs) to serve as personalized judges in various applications. The researchers investigate the ability of LLMs to accurately assess and provide personalized feedback on content, such as written submissions or creative works.
The paper covers several key aspects of this investigation:
-
Evaluation of LLMs: The researchers explore different approaches to evaluating the performance of LLMs in judge-like tasks, including the use of Bayesian statistical modeling to understand the predictors of LLM performance.
-
Limitations of Fine-tuned Judge Models: The paper also examines the potential limitations and challenges that may arise when fine-tuning LLMs for specific judge roles, as described in this related work.
-
LLM-based Panels: The researchers investigate the idea of using LLM-based panels to replace traditional human judges or juries, which could offer more consistent, scalable, and personalized evaluation.
The paper aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the feasibility and trade-offs of using LLMs as personalized judges, which could have significant implications for how content is assessed and feedback is provided in the future.
Critical Analysis
The paper raises important questions about the limitations and potential risks of using LLMs as personalized judges. While the research explores the capabilities of LLMs in this role, it also highlights the need for careful consideration of the trade-offs between safety and utility when deploying such systems.
One key concern is the potential for bias and inconsistency in LLM-based judgments, especially when the models are fine-tuned for specific tasks or domains. The paper acknowledges that further research is needed to understand the sources of bias and develop robust methods to mitigate them.
Additionally, the use of LLM-based panels to replace human judges or juries raises ethical and legal questions that require careful examination. The paper does not fully address the implications of automating such high-stakes decision-making processes, and more discussion on the societal impacts would be valuable.
Overall, the research provides a solid foundation for understanding the potential of LLMs as personalized judges, but additional work is needed to address the significant challenges and concerns that come with such applications.
Conclusion
This paper explores the intriguing possibility of using large language models (LLMs) as personalized judges to assess and provide feedback on various types of content. The research covers the evaluation of LLM performance, the limitations of fine-tuned judge models, and the potential use of LLM-based panels to replace traditional human judges or juries.
The findings suggest that LLMs may have the capability to serve as personalized judges, but the paper also highlights the need for careful consideration of the trade-offs and potential risks involved. Addressing issues of bias, consistency, and the societal impacts of automating high-stakes decision-making processes will be crucial as this technology continues to develop.
Overall, this work provides a valuable contribution to the ongoing discussion around the use of LLMs in high-stakes applications and the broader implications for the future of content assessment and feedback.
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
š¤Æ
New!Humans or LLMs as the Judge? A Study on Judgement Biases
Guiming Hardy Chen, Shunian Chen, Ziche Liu, Feng Jiang, Benyou Wang
0
0
Adopting human and large language models (LLM) as judges (a.k.a human- and LLM-as-a-judge) for evaluating the performance of LLMs has recently gained attention. Nonetheless, this approach concurrently introduces potential biases from human and LLMs, questioning the reliability of the evaluation results. In this paper, we propose a novel framework that is free from referencing groundtruth annotations for investigating Misinformation Oversight Bias, Gender Bias, Authority Bias and Beauty Bias on LLM and human judges. We curate a dataset referring to the revised Bloom's Taxonomy and conduct thousands of evaluations. Results show that human and LLM judges are vulnerable to perturbations to various degrees, and that even the cutting-edge judges possess considerable biases. We further exploit these biases to conduct attacks on LLM judges. We hope that our work can notify the community of the bias and vulnerability of human- and LLM-as-a-judge, as well as the urgency of developing robust evaluation systems.
7/1/2024
Judging the Judges: Evaluating Alignment and Vulnerabilities in LLMs-as-Judges
Aman Singh Thakur, Kartik Choudhary, Venkat Srinik Ramayapally, Sankaran Vaidyanathan, Dieuwke Hupkes
0
0
Offering a promising solution to the scalability challenges associated with human evaluation, the LLM-as-a-judge paradigm is rapidly gaining traction as an approach to evaluating large language models (LLMs). However, there are still many open questions about the strengths and weaknesses of this paradigm, and what potential biases it may hold. In this paper, we present a comprehensive study of the performance of various LLMs acting as judges. We leverage TriviaQA as a benchmark for assessing objective knowledge reasoning of LLMs and evaluate them alongside human annotations which we found to have a high inter-annotator agreement. Our study includes 9 judge models and 9 exam taker models -- both base and instruction-tuned. We assess the judge model's alignment across different model sizes, families, and judge prompts. Among other results, our research rediscovers the importance of using Cohen's kappa as a metric of alignment as opposed to simple percent agreement, showing that judges with high percent agreement can still assign vastly different scores. We find that both Llama-3 70B and GPT-4 Turbo have an excellent alignment with humans, but in terms of ranking exam taker models, they are outperformed by both JudgeLM-7B and the lexical judge Contains, which have up to 34 points lower human alignment. Through error analysis and various other studies, including the effects of instruction length and leniency bias, we hope to provide valuable lessons for using LLMs as judges in the future.
6/19/2024
LLMs instead of Human Judges? A Large Scale Empirical Study across 20 NLP Evaluation Tasks
Anna Bavaresco, Raffaella Bernardi, Leonardo Bertolazzi, Desmond Elliott, Raquel Fern'andez, Albert Gatt, Esam Ghaleb, Mario Giulianelli, Michael Hanna, Alexander Koller, Andr'e F. T. Martins, Philipp Mondorf, Vera Neplenbroek, Sandro Pezzelle, Barbara Plank, David Schlangen, Alessandro Suglia, Aditya K Surikuchi, Ece Takmaz, Alberto Testoni
0
0
There is an increasing trend towards evaluating NLP models with LLM-generated judgments instead of human judgments. In the absence of a comparison against human data, this raises concerns about the validity of these evaluations; in case they are conducted with proprietary models, this also raises concerns over reproducibility. We provide JUDGE-BENCH, a collection of 20 NLP datasets with human annotations, and comprehensively evaluate 11 current LLMs, covering both open-weight and proprietary models, for their ability to replicate the annotations. Our evaluations show that each LLM exhibits a large variance across datasets in its correlation to human judgments. We conclude that LLMs are not yet ready to systematically replace human judges in NLP.
6/27/2024
š
MLLM-as-a-Judge: Assessing Multimodal LLM-as-a-Judge with Vision-Language Benchmark
Dongping Chen, Ruoxi Chen, Shilin Zhang, Yinuo Liu, Yaochen Wang, Huichi Zhou, Qihui Zhang, Yao Wan, Pan Zhou, Lichao Sun
0
0
Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have gained significant attention recently, showing remarkable potential in artificial general intelligence. However, assessing the utility of MLLMs presents considerable challenges, primarily due to the absence of multimodal benchmarks that align with human preferences. Drawing inspiration from the concept of LLM-as-a-Judge within LLMs, this paper introduces a novel benchmark, termed MLLM-as-a-Judge, to assess the ability of MLLMs in assisting judges across diverse modalities, encompassing three distinct tasks: Scoring Evaluation, Pair Comparison, and Batch Ranking. Our study reveals that, while MLLMs demonstrate remarkable human-like discernment in Pair Comparison, there is a significant divergence from human preferences in Scoring Evaluation and Batch Ranking. Furthermore, a closer examination reveals persistent challenges in the judgment capacities of LLMs, including diverse biases, hallucinatory responses, and inconsistencies in judgment, even in advanced models such as GPT-4V. These findings emphasize the pressing need for enhancements and further research efforts to be undertaken before regarding MLLMs as fully reliable evaluators. In light of this, we advocate for additional efforts dedicated to supporting the continuous development within the domain of MLLM functioning as judges. The code and dataset are publicly available at our project homepage: url{https://mllm-judge.github.io/}.
6/12/2024