LLMs instead of Human Judges? A Large Scale Empirical Study across 20 NLP Evaluation Tasks
There is an increasing trend towards evaluating NLP models with LLMs instead of human judgments, raising questions about the validity of these evaluations, as well as their reproducibility in the case of proprietary models. We provide JUDGE-BENCH, an extensible collection of 20 NLP datasets with human annotations covering a broad range of evaluated properties and types of data, and comprehensively evaluate 11 current LLMs, covering both open-weight and proprietary models, for their ability to replicate the annotations. Our evaluations show substantial variance across models and datasets. Models are reliable evaluators on some tasks, but overall display substantial variability depending on the property being evaluated, the expertise level of the human judges, and whether the language is human or model-generated. We conclude that LLMs should be carefully validated against human judgments before being used as evaluators.
Code (1)
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
Judging the Judges: Evaluating Alignment and Vulnerabilities in LLMs-as-Judges
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, th…
TriviaQAOn Evaluating LLM Alignment by Evaluating LLMs as Judges
Alignment with human preferences is an important evaluation aspect of LLMs, requiring them to be helpful, honest, safe, and to precisely follow human instructions. Evaluating large language models' (LLMs) alignment typic…
JudgeLM: Fine-tuned Large Language Models are Scalable Judges
Evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) in open-ended scenarios is challenging because existing benchmarks and metrics can not measure them comprehensively. To address this problem, we propose to fine-tune LLMs as scalab…
When Can We Trust LLMs in Mental Health? Large-Scale Benchmarks for Reliable LLM Evaluation
Evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) for mental health support is challenging due to the emotionally and cognitively complex nature of therapeutic dialogue. Existing benchmarks are limited in scale, reliability, often…
Safety is Contextual, LLM-Judges Are Not: Navigating the Rigid Priors of Evaluators
LLMs-as-judges are the only way to evaluate safety at scale. Despite their importance, LLM-judges themselves are rarely evaluated beyond human agreement in simple, static benchmarks. We therefore investigate two under-ex…