REVIEW 5 cited by
Style Over Substance: Evaluation Biases for Large Language Models
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
As large language models (LLMs) continue to advance, accurately and comprehensively evaluating their performance becomes increasingly challenging. Ranking the relative performance of LLMs based on Elo ratings, according to human judgment, is gaining more popularity. However, the extent to which humans and LLMs are capable evaluators remains uncertain. This study investigates the behavior of crowd-sourced and expert annotators, as well as LLMs, when comparing outputs from different models. To achieve this, we curate a dataset of intentionally flawed machine-generated answers. Our findings reveal a concerning bias in the evaluation process, as answers with factual errors are rated more favorably than answers that are too short or contained grammatical errors. To address this issue, we propose independently evaluating machine-generated text across multiple dimensions, rather than merging all the evaluation aspects into a single score. We instantiate this idea with the Elo rating system, resulting in the Multi-Elo Rating System (MERS). Empirical results from our study reveal that this proposed approach significantly enhances the quality of LLM-based evaluations, particularly in terms of factual accuracy. However, there is no significant improvement in crowd-sourced-based evaluations, indicating the need for further investigation.
Forward citations
Cited by 5 Pith papers
-
IatroBench: Pre-Registered Evidence of Iatrogenic Harm from AI Safety Measures
Frontier models systematically withhold clinically necessary guidance from laypeople that they provide to physicians on identical facts, and LLM judges fail to detect that omission harm.
-
Towards Efficient and Effective Alignment of Large Language Models
A thesis presenting Lion, WebR, LTE, BMC, and FollowBench, five empirical methods that together address LLM alignment data, training, and evaluation.
-
Who Endorsed It? Measuring Authority Bias Across Expertise Levels in Language Models
Language models accept misleading endorsements more readily from higher-expertise persona sources, and the effect can be partially steered away by subtracting a residual-stream vector.
-
Simple and Effective Baselines for Code Summarisation Evaluation
Asking an LLM to rate a code summary directly correlates with human judgments as well as or better than n-gram, learned, and embedding metrics, even without a reference summary.
-
Inverse Reinforcement Learning Meets Large Language Model Post-Training: Basics, Advances, and Opportunities
A tutorial reviewing LLM alignment through the lens of inverse reinforcement learning, arguing that neural reward models learned from human data are central to post-training.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.