Re-evaluating Automatic LLM System Ranking for Alignment with Human Preference
Evaluating and ranking the capabilities of different LLMs is crucial for understanding their performance and alignment with human preferences. Due to the high cost and time-consuming nature of human evaluations, an automatic LLM bencher (i.e., an automatic evaluation framework that aims to rank LLMs based on their alignment with human preferences) is indispensable. An automatic LLM bencher consists of four components: the input set (e.g., a user instruction), the evaluation model (e.g., an LLM), the evaluation type (e.g., pairwise comparison), and the aggregation method (e.g., the ELO rating system). However, previous work has not thoroughly explored how to select these components or how their different combinations influence the results. In this work, through controlled experiments, we provide a series of recommendations on how to choose each component to better automate the evaluation of LLMs. Furthermore, we discovered that when evaluating LLMs with similar performance, the performance of the automatic LLM bencher declines sharply, underscoring the limitations of current benchers and calling for future work. Lastly, we found that the evaluation models' performance at the instance level (e.g., the accuracy of selecting the best output) does not always align with their effectiveness when used as a component of a bencher, highlighting the importance of dedicated system-level evaluation of benchers.
Code (0)
등록된 구현이 없습니다.
Methods 이 논문이 사용한 방법론
Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반
DeRA-MOS: Optimizing Text-to-Music Evaluation via Decoupled Listwise Ranking and Modality Alignment
Evaluating text-to-music (TTM) systems remains expensive because music impression (MI) and text alignment (TA) scores rely on human mean opinion scores (MOS). Most automatic MOS estimators are trained with point-wise reg…
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 typic…
Preference Ranking Optimization for Human Alignment
Large language models (LLMs) often contain misleading content, emphasizing the need to align them with human values to ensure secure AI systems. Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) has been employed to achi…
CREAM: Comparison-Based Reference-Free ELO-Ranked Automatic Evaluation for Meeting Summarization
Large Language Models (LLMs) have spurred interest in automatic evaluation methods for summarization, offering a faster, more cost-effective alternative to human evaluation. However, existing methods often fall short whe…
Meeting SummarizationIs Summary Useful or Not? An Extrinsic Human Evaluation of Text Summaries on Downstream Tasks
Research on automated text summarization relies heavily on human and automatic evaluation. While recent work on human evaluation mainly adopted intrinsic evaluation methods, judging the generic quality of text summaries,…
InformativenessQuestion Answeringtext-classificationText Classification+2