On 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 typically involves directly assessing their open-ended responses, requiring human annotators or strong LLM judges. Conversely, LLMs themselves have also been extensively evaluated as judges for assessing alignment. In this work, we examine the relationship between LLMs' generation and evaluation capabilities in aligning with human preferences. To this end, we first conduct a comprehensive analysis of the generation-evaluation consistency (GE-consistency) among various LLMs, revealing a strong correlation between their generation and evaluation capabilities when evaluated by a strong LLM preference oracle. Utilizing this finding, we propose a benchmarking paradigm that measures LLM alignment with human preferences without directly evaluating their generated outputs, instead assessing LLMs in their role as evaluators. Our evaluation shows that our proposed benchmark, AlignEval, matches or surpasses widely used automatic LLM evaluation benchmarks, such as AlpacaEval and Arena-Hard, in capturing human preferences when ranking LLMs. Our study offers valuable insights into the connection between LLMs' generation and evaluation capabilities, and introduces a benchmark that assesses alignment without directly evaluating model outputs.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
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…
TriviaQAJudgeBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLM-based Judges
LLM-based judges have emerged as a scalable alternative to human evaluation and are increasingly used to assess, compare, and improve models. However, the reliability of LLM-based judges themselves is rarely scrutinized.…
MathTuning LLM Judges Hyperparameters
Evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) often requires costly human annotations. To address this, LLM-based judges have been proposed, which compare the outputs of two LLMs enabling the ranking of models without human in…
SECQUE: A Benchmark for Evaluating Real-World Financial Analysis Capabilities
We introduce SECQUE, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) in financial analysis tasks. SECQUE comprises 565 expert-written questions covering SEC filings analysis across four key categori…
Financial AnalysisREPA: Russian Error Types Annotation for Evaluating Text Generation and Judgment Capabilities
Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have introduced the novel paradigm of using LLMs as judges, where an LLM evaluates and scores the outputs of another LLM, which often correlates highly with human preferenc…
2kText Generation