arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 2408.13006cs.CL
收藏

LLM作为评判者在LLM对齐任务中的系统性评估:可解释的指标与多样化的提示模板

Systematic Evaluation of LLM-as-a-Judge in LLM Alignment Tasks: Explainable Metrics and Diverse Prompt Templates

UC Merced(加州大学默塞德分校);PAII Inc.(PAII公司);Emory University(埃默里大学);Inflection AI(Inflection AI公司);University of Rochester(罗切斯特大学)

Hui Wei, Shenghua He, Tian Xia, Fei Liu, Andy Wong, Jingyang Lin, Mei Han

AI总结:

本文系统性评估了LLM对齐任务中的LLM-as-a-Judge方法,提出可解释的评估指标以缓解LLM内部不一致性,并开发开源框架比较多种评判者,发现提示模板显著影响评判性能且与人类一致性仅中等。

摘要:

LLM-as-a-Judge已被广泛应用于评估和比较不同的LLM对齐方法(例如RLHF和DPO)。然而,由于LLM评判者的偏见和决策的不一致性,关于其可靠性的担忧逐渐浮现。先前的研究开发了评估框架来衡量LLM评判者的可靠性及其与人类偏好的一致性。然而,所采用的评估指标通常缺乏充分的可解释性,且未能解决LLM内部不一致的问题。此外,现有研究在应用LLM-as-a-Judge方法时,对各种提示模板的影响探索不足,导致不同对齐算法之间的比较可能存在不一致。在本研究中,我们通过定义更具理论可解释性的评估指标,并从可靠性指标中显式缓解LLM内部不一致性,系统性地评估了对齐任务中的LLM-as-a-Judge。我们开发了一个开源框架,用于评估、比较和可视化LLM评判者的可靠性与一致性,从而帮助从业者为对齐任务选择合适的LLM评判者。在实验中,我们考察了多样化提示模板对LLM评判者可靠性的影响,并通过在两个常见对齐数据集(即TL;DR Summarization和HH-RLHF-Helpfulness)上比较各种LLM评判者,展示了我们开发的框架。研究结果表明,提示模板对LLM评判者的性能有显著影响,且测试的LLM评判者与人类评估者之间的一致性水平仅处于中等水平。

英文摘要:

LLM-as-a-Judge has been widely applied to evaluate and compare different LLM alignmnet approaches (e.g., RLHF and DPO). However, concerns regarding its reliability have emerged, due to LLM judges' biases and inconsistent decision-making. Previous research has developed evaluation frameworks to assess reliability of LLM judges and their alignment with human preferences. However, the employed evaluation metrics often lack adequate explainability and fail to address LLM internal inconsistency. Additionally, existing studies inadequately explore the impact of various prompt templates when applying LLM-as-a-Judge methods, leading to potentially inconsistent comparisons between different alignment algorithms. In this work, we systematically evaluate LLM-as-a-Judge on alignment tasks by defining more theoretically interpretable evaluation metrics and explicitly mitigating LLM internal inconsistency from reliability metrics. We develop an open-source framework to evaluate, compare, and visualize the reliability and alignment of LLM judges, which facilitates practitioners to choose LLM judges for alignment tasks. In the experiments, we examine effects of diverse prompt templates on LLM-judge reliability and also demonstrate our developed framework by comparing various LLM judges on two common alignment datasets (i.e., TL;DR Summarization and HH-RLHF-Helpfulness). Our results indicate a significant impact of prompt templates on LLM judge performance, as well as a mediocre alignment level between the tested LLM judges and human evaluators.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑