Human-Centered Design Recommendations for LLM-as-a-Judge
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper provides human-centered design recommendations for using large language models (LLMs) as judges.
- It examines the challenges and opportunities of deploying LLMs in legal and judicial contexts.
- The researchers conducted user studies to understand human perspectives on LLMs as judges and identify key design considerations.
Plain English Explanation
The paper explores the idea of using large language models (LLMs) as automated judges or decision-makers in legal and judicial settings. LLMs are powerful AI systems that can understand and generate human-like text. The researchers wanted to understand how people feel about having an LLM make important decisions that impact their lives, such as court rulings.
Through user studies, the researchers gathered insights on the potential benefits and drawbacks of using LLMs as judges. For example, LLMs could potentially make decisions more consistently and quickly than humans. However, people may be uncomfortable with an AI system having such authority and influence over their lives. The paper identifies key design considerations to address these concerns, such as ensuring transparency, accountability, and human oversight when using LLMs in judicial roles.
Technical Explanation
The paper presents the EvaluLLM framework, which the researchers used to evaluate the use of LLMs as judges. This involved conducting user studies to understand people's perceptions and concerns around LLMs in this context.
The researchers recruited participants to engage in simulated legal scenarios, where they interacted with an LLM acting as a judge. They collected feedback on factors such as trust, fairness, and comfort with the LLM's decision-making. Based on the user study findings, the paper outlines several design recommendations to address key challenges, such as:
- Transparency: Ensuring users understand how the LLM reaches its decisions and the reasoning behind them.
- Accountability: Establishing clear lines of responsibility and appeal processes when using LLMs as judges.
- Human Oversight: Maintaining human involvement and the ability to override LLM decisions in critical cases.
The paper also discusses the potential benefits of using LLMs, such as consistency and efficiency, as well as the risks, such as biases and lack of contextual understanding.
Critical Analysis
The paper provides a thoughtful analysis of the challenges and opportunities in using LLMs as judges. The user study approach is a valuable way to gather insights from the people who would be most impacted by such a system.
However, the paper does not address the potential for LLMs to become vulnerable to adversarial attacks or other security risks that could undermine the fairness and reliability of their decisions. Additionally, the paper does not explore the ethical implications of delegating such important decisions to an AI system, which may raise concerns about human agency and responsibility.
Further research is needed to thoroughly evaluate the feasibility and viability of using LLMs as judges and to address the broader societal implications of this approach.
Conclusion
This paper provides a valuable starting point for understanding the human-centered design considerations when using LLMs in judicial roles. The researchers have identified key challenges and opportunities that must be carefully addressed to ensure the ethical and responsible deployment of such systems. As the capabilities of LLMs continue to evolve, ongoing dialog and research in this area will be crucial to upholding the principles of fairness, transparency, and human agency in the judicial process.
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
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
Humans or LLMs as the Judge? A Study on Judgement Biases
Guiming Hardy Chen, Shunian Chen, Ziche Liu, Feng Jiang, Benyou Wang
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.
Read more7/1/2024
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
Reference-Guided Verdict: LLMs-as-Judges in Automatic Evaluation of Free-Form Text
Sher Badshah, Hassan Sajjad
The emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) as chat assistants capable of generating human-like conversations has amplified the need for robust evaluation methods, particularly for open-ended tasks. Conventional metrics like BLEU and ROUGE, while useful, are increasingly inadequate for capturing the subtle semantics and contextual richness of such generative outputs. We propose a reference-guided verdict method that automates the evaluation process by leveraging multiple LLMs-as-judges. Through experiments on three open-ended question-answering tasks, we demonstrate that combining multiple LLMs-as-judges significantly improves the reliability and accuracy of evaluations, particularly in complex tasks where a single model might struggle. Our findings reveal a strong correlation with human evaluations, establishing our method as a viable and effective alternative to traditional metrics and human judgments, particularly in the context of LLM-based chat assistants where the complexity and diversity of responses challenge existing benchmarks.
Read more8/21/2024