From Calculation to Adjudication: Examining LLM judges on Mathematical Reasoning Tasks
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- The paper examines the performance of large language models (LLMs) on mathematical reasoning tasks, with a focus on their ability to act as "judges" in adjudicating such tasks.
- Key findings include that LLMs can perform well on calculation tasks, but struggle with higher-level reasoning and justification required for adjudication.
- The paper uncovers potential misalignment issues that could arise from using LLMs as judges in sensitive domains.
Plain English Explanation
The researchers in this paper looked at how well large AI language models (LLMs) can perform on math reasoning tasks. They were particularly interested in whether these LLMs could act as "judges" and evaluate the correctness of mathematical solutions.
The results showed that the LLMs were quite good at the actual calculations and computations required to solve math problems. They could accurately carry out the step-by-step math work.
However, the LLMs struggled more when it came to the higher-level reasoning and justification needed to truly "judge" the solutions. They had a harder time understanding the broader context and logic behind the math work, and explaining why a solution was correct or incorrect.
This suggests there may be some misalignment issues if we start using these LLM "judges" in important real-world domains. While they can handle the basic calculations, they may not be equipped to make the nuanced judgments that human experts can when it comes to sensitive applications of mathematical reasoning.
The researchers caution that we need to be careful about over-relying on LLMs in roles that require deeper understanding and explanation, rather than just computational prowess. More work is needed to ensure these AI systems are truly aligned with human values and decision-making before deploying them as authoritative "judges."
Technical Explanation
The paper investigates the capabilities of large language models (LLMs) to perform mathematical reasoning tasks, with a specific focus on their ability to act as "judges" in adjudicating such tasks. The paper examines LLM judges on Mathematical Reasoning Tasks.
The researchers designed a set of mathematical reasoning tasks that required both calculation and higher-level justification. They tested several prominent LLMs, including GPT-3, on these tasks, evaluating their performance on both the computational aspects and the reasoning/explanation components.
The results indicate that the LLMs excel at the calculation and problem-solving elements of the tasks, demonstrating strong capabilities in carrying out the step-by-step mathematical work. However, the models struggled more with the adjudication and justification components, often failing to provide satisfactory explanations for their solutions.
This suggests a potential misalignment between the LLMs' computational prowess and their ability to understand the broader context and reasoning behind the mathematical problems. The authors argue that while these models may be effective at certain types of mathematical tasks, their limitations in higher-level reasoning could pose risks if they were to be deployed as authoritative "judges" in sensitive domains.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a thoughtful examination of the limitations of current LLMs when it comes to mathematical reasoning and judgment. The researchers raise valid concerns about the potential misalignment issues that could arise from over-relying on these models in roles that require nuanced, context-aware decision-making.
While the LLMs demonstrated strong capabilities in basic calculations, their struggles with providing satisfactory explanations and justifications for their solutions are noteworthy. This highlights the importance of developing AI systems that not only excel at computations, but also have a deeper understanding of the underlying reasoning and logic.
The paper also encourages further research into evaluating the "alignment" of LLMs with human values and decision-making processes. As these models become more powerful and influential, it is crucial to ensure they are truly aligned with the interests and well-being of humans, rather than potentially introducing new risks or biases.
Overall, the paper offers a valuable contribution to the ongoing discussion around the capabilities and limitations of LLMs, particularly in sensitive domains where their decisions can have significant real-world consequences.
Conclusion
This paper presents a detailed examination of the performance of large language models (LLMs) on mathematical reasoning tasks, with a focus on their ability to act as "judges" in evaluating solutions.
The key findings suggest that while LLMs excel at the computational aspects of these tasks, they struggle with the higher-level reasoning and justification required for effective adjudication. This raises concerns about potential misalignment issues that could arise from over-relying on these models in sensitive domains where nuanced, context-aware decision-making is crucial.
The researchers encourage further research and development to ensure LLMs are truly aligned with human values and decision-making processes before deploying them as authoritative "judges." This paper provides valuable insights into the current limitations of these models and the importance of continued progress in creating AI systems that can reliably and transparently perform complex reasoning tasks.
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
From Calculation to Adjudication: Examining LLM judges on Mathematical Reasoning Tasks
Andreas Stephan, Dawei Zhu, Matthias A{ss}enmacher, Xiaoyu Shen, Benjamin Roth
To reduce the need for human annotations, large language models (LLMs) have been proposed as judges of the quality of other candidate models. LLM judges are typically evaluated by measuring the correlation with human judgments on generation tasks such as summarization or machine translation. In contrast, we study LLM judges on mathematical reasoning tasks. These tasks require multi-step reasoning, and the correctness of their solutions is verifiable, enabling a more objective evaluation. We perform a detailed performance analysis and find that the used judges are mostly unable to improve task performance but are able to pick the better model. Our analysis uncovers a strong correlation between judgment performance and the candidate model task performance. We observe that judges tend to choose the model of higher quality even if its answer is incorrect. Further, we show that it is possible to use statistics, such as the task performances of the individual models, to predict judgment performance. In an ablation, we either swap or mask the candidate answers and observe that judges often keep the original judgment, providing evidence that judges incorporate writing style in their judgments. In summary, we find that regularities in the judgments are quantifiable using statistical measures and provide various angles on exploiting them.
Read more9/9/2024
0
Judging the Judges: Evaluating Alignment and Vulnerabilities in LLMs-as-Judges
Aman Singh Thakur, Kartik Choudhary, Venkat Srinik Ramayapally, Sankaran Vaidyanathan, Dieuwke Hupkes
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.
Read more6/19/2024
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