Polyrating: A Cost-Effective and Bias-Aware Rating System for LLM Evaluation
cs.CL, cs.AI
Submitted: 2024-09-01
Updated: 2026-10-12
Code: https://github.com/eth-sri/polyrating
License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
The gist: Rating-based human evaluation has become an essential tool to accurately evaluate the impressive performance of large language models (LLMs).
Terminology
Abstract
Rating-based human evaluation has become an essential tool to accurately evaluate the impressive performance of large language models (LLMs). However, current rating systems suffer from several important limitations: first, they fail to account for biases that significantly influence evaluation results, second, they require large and expensive preference datasets to obtain accurate ratings, and third, they do not facilitate meaningful comparisons of model ratings across different tasks. To address these issues, we introduce Polyrating, an expressive and flexible rating system based on maximum a posteriori estimation that enables a more nuanced and thorough analysis of model performance at lower costs. Polyrating can detect and quantify biases affecting human preferences, ensuring fairer model comparisons. Further, Polyrating can reduce the cost of human evaluations by up to 41% for new models and up to 77% for new tasks by leveraging existing benchmark scores. Lastly, Polyrating enables direct comparisons of ratings across different tasks, providing a comprehensive understanding of an LLMs' strengths, weaknesses, and relative performance across different applications.
Sources
- Gemini: A Family of Highly Capable Multimodal Models
- Humans or LLMs as the Judge? A Study on Judgement Biases
- Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human Preference
- Evading Data Contamination Detection for Language Models is (too) Easy
- Length-Controlled AlpacaEval: A Simple Way to Debias Automatic Evaluators
- Are We Done with MMLU?
- Human Feedback is not Gold Standard
- Holistic Evaluation of Language Models
- WildBench: Benchmarking LLMs with Challenging Tasks from Real Users in the Wild
- MixEval: Deriving Wisdom of the Crowd from LLM Benchmark Mixtures
- GPT-4 Technical Report
- Judging the Judges: A Systematic Study of Position Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge
- A Long Way to Go: Investigating Length Correlations in RLHF
- How I won the "Chess Ratings - Elo vs the Rest of the World" Competition
- Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluators
- Style Over Substance: Evaluation Biases for Large Language Models
- Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena
Related papers
- Exploring Solution Divergence and Its Effect on Large Language Model Problem Solving
- Ishigaki-IDS-Bench: A Benchmark for Generating Information Delivery Specification from BIM Information Requirements
- Subliminal Steering: Stronger Encoding of Hidden Signals
- MedStruct-S: A Benchmark for Key Discovery, Key-Conditioned QA and Semi-Structured Extraction from OCR Clinical Reports
- The End of Transformers? On Challenging Attention and the Rise of Sub-Quadratic Architectures
- Untangling the Mechanisms of Misleading Context in Medical Question Answering