Evaluating Large Language Models at Evaluating Instruction Following

Overview

• This paper investigates the effectiveness of using large language models (LLMs) to evaluate how well generated text follows given instructions, a metric known as instruction following.
• The authors introduce a challenging benchmark called LLMBar, which tests an LLM evaluator's ability to discern outputs that adhere to instructions from those that diverge, even if the divergent output has deceptive qualities like a more engaging tone.
• Contrary to existing research, the authors find that different LLM evaluators (combinations of LLMs and prompts) have distinct performance on LLMBar, and even the best-performing ones have room for improvement.
• The paper also presents a novel suite of prompting strategies to help close the gap between LLM and human evaluators of instruction following.

Plain English Explanation

As artificial intelligence (AI) models called large language models (LLMs) continue to improve, researchers are exploring ways to use these LLMs to evaluate other AI systems, rather than relying on expensive and time-consuming human evaluations. One key metric for evaluating AI systems is instruction following, which looks at how closely the system's output matches the given instructions.

In this paper, the authors create a new benchmark called LLMBar to test how well LLM evaluators can distinguish between outputs that follow instructions and those that don't, even if the non-compliant output has qualities that might trick the evaluator, like a more engaging tone. Surprisingly, the authors find that different LLM evaluators (using different LLMs and prompts) perform quite differently on this benchmark, and even the best-performing ones still have room for improvement.

To address this, the researchers develop a new set of prompting strategies to help LLM evaluators get better at assessing instruction following. By creating this LLMBar benchmark and exploring new prompting approaches, the authors hope to provide insights that will lead to the development of better AI systems that can follow instructions more reliably.

Technical Explanation

The paper investigates the use of large language models (LLMs) as scalable and cost-effective alternatives to human evaluations for comparing the growing number of AI models. Specifically, the authors focus on using LLM evaluators to assess instruction following, which measures how closely the generated text adheres to the given instructions.

To test the capabilities of these LLM evaluators, the researchers introduce a new benchmark called LLMBar. LLMBar consists of 419 pairs of text outputs, where one output in each pair adheres to the instructions while the other diverges, yet may possess deceptive qualities that could mislead an LLM evaluator, such as a more engaging tone.

Contrary to previous research, the authors find that different LLM evaluators (combinations of LLMs and prompts) exhibit distinct performance on the LLMBar benchmark. Even the highest-scoring evaluators have substantial room for improvement in accurately assessing instruction following.

To address this, the paper presents a novel suite of prompting strategies that can help narrow the gap between LLM and human evaluators of instruction following. By developing the LLMBar benchmark and exploring new prompting approaches, the authors aim to provide more insights into the capabilities and limitations of LLM evaluators, ultimately contributing to the development of better instruction-following AI models.

Critical Analysis

The paper provides a thoughtful and rigorous evaluation of using LLMs as scalable alternatives to human assessments of instruction following. By introducing the LLMBar benchmark, the authors have created a valuable tool for testing the capabilities of LLM evaluators in a more challenging and realistic setting than previous research.

One potential limitation of the study is the relatively small size of the LLMBar dataset, with only 419 text output pairs. While this allowed for careful manual curation, a larger and more diverse dataset could provide additional insights. The authors acknowledge this and suggest that future work could expand the benchmark.

Additionally, the paper does not delve deeply into the specific reasons why different LLM evaluators exhibit varying performance on the LLMBar task. Further analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, and biases of different LLM architectures and prompting strategies could yield additional insights to guide the development of more robust instruction following evaluation systems.

Overall, this research makes an important contribution to the growing field of LLM evaluation and instruction following assessment. By highlighting the limitations of current LLM evaluators and proposing new prompting strategies, the authors pave the way for future work to create more reliable and predictive LLM evaluation systems.

Conclusion

This paper investigates the use of large language models (LLMs) as a scalable alternative to human evaluations for assessing instruction following, a metric that gauges how well generated text adheres to given instructions. The authors introduce a challenging benchmark called LLMBar to test the capabilities of LLM evaluators in this task.

Contrary to previous research, the authors find that different LLM evaluators exhibit distinct performance on LLMBar, and even the best-performing ones have room for improvement. To address this, the paper presents novel prompting strategies to help narrow the gap between LLM and human evaluators of instruction following.

By developing the LLMBar benchmark and exploring new prompting approaches, this research provides valuable insights to guide the development of more robust and reliable instruction-following AI models. The findings highlight the need for continued advancements in LLM evaluation methods to ensure the accurate assessment of emerging AI systems.