Language Model Preference Evaluation with Multiple Weak Evaluators
Keywords: Large Language Models, Weak Evaluators
TL;DR: We introduce GED, a framework that enhances LLM-based evaluations by ensembling and denoising preference graphs, improving the consistency and reliability of LLM evaluators.
Abstract: Despite the remarkable success of Large Language Models (LLMs), evaluating their outputs' quality regarding *preference* remains a critical challenge. Existing works usually leverage a powerful LLM (e.g., GPT4) as the judge for comparing LLMs' output pairwisely, yet such model-based evaluator is vulnerable to *conflicting preference*, i.e., output A is better than B, B than C, but C than A, causing contradictory evaluation results. To improve model-based preference evaluation, we introduce GED (Preference Graph Ensemble and Denoise), a novel approach that leverages multiple model-based evaluators to construct preference graphs, and then ensemble and denoise these graphs for better, non-contradictory evaluation results. In particular, our method consists of two primary stages: aggregating evaluations into a unified graph and applying a denoising process to eliminate cyclic inconsistencies, ensuring a directed acyclic graph (DAG) structure. We provide theoretical guarantees for our framework, demonstrating its efficacy in recovering the ground truth preference structure. Extensive experiments across ten benchmark datasets show that GED outperforms baseline methods in model ranking, response selection, and model alignment tasks. Notably, GED combines weaker evaluators like Llama3-8B, Mistral-7B, and Qwen2-7B to surpass the performance of stronger evaluators like Qwen2-72B, highlighting its ability to enhance evaluation reliability and improve model performance.
Primary Area: foundation or frontier models, including LLMs
Code Of Ethics: I acknowledge that I and all co-authors of this work have read and commit to adhering to the ICLR Code of Ethics.
Submission Guidelines: I certify that this submission complies with the submission instructions as described on https://iclr.cc/Conferences/2025/AuthorGuide.
Reciprocal Reviewing: I understand the reciprocal reviewing requirement as described on https://iclr.cc/Conferences/2025/CallForPapers. If none of the authors are registered as a reviewer, it may result in a desk rejection at the discretion of the program chairs. To request an exception, please complete this form at https://forms.gle/Huojr6VjkFxiQsUp6.
Anonymous Url: I certify that there is no URL (e.g., github page) that could be used to find authors’ identity.
No Acknowledgement Section: I certify that there is no acknowledgement section in this submission for double blind review.
Submission Number: 1152
Loading