Fairer Preferences Elicit Improved Human-Aligned Large Language Model Judgments

Han Zhou,Xingchen Wan,Yinhong Liu,Nigel Collier,Ivan Vulić,Anna Korhonen

2024-10-13

Abstract:Large language models (LLMs) have shown promising abilities as cost-effective and reference-free evaluators for assessing language generation quality. In particular, pairwise LLM evaluators, which compare two generated texts and determine the preferred one, have been employed in a wide range of applications. However, LLMs exhibit preference biases and worrying sensitivity to prompt designs. In this work, we first reveal that the predictive preference of LLMs can be highly brittle and skewed, even with semantically equivalent instructions. We find that fairer predictive preferences from LLMs consistently lead to judgments that are better aligned with humans. Motivated by this phenomenon, we propose an automatic Zero-shot Evaluation-oriented Prompt Optimization framework, ZEPO, which aims to produce fairer preference decisions and improve the alignment of LLM evaluators with human judgments. To this end, we propose a zero-shot learning objective based on the preference decision fairness. ZEPO demonstrates substantial performance improvements over state-of-the-art LLM evaluators, without requiring labeled data, on representative meta-evaluation benchmarks. Our findings underscore the critical correlation between preference fairness and human alignment, positioning ZEPO as an efficient prompt optimizer for bridging the gap between LLM evaluators and human judgments.

Computation and Language,Artificial Intelligence,Computers and Society,Machine Learning

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The problem that this paper attempts to solve is the preference bias of large language models (LLMs) as evaluators in the evaluation of natural language generation quality. Specifically, although LLMs have been widely used in the evaluation of natural language generation tasks without references, the preference bias they exhibit and their high sensitivity to prompt design lead to insufficient consistency with human judgments. Through systematic research, the paper reveals that the prediction preferences of LLMs can be highly fragile and skewed even under semantically equivalent instructions. The study finds that more fair prediction preferences can continuously improve the consistency between LLM evaluation results and human judgments. Based on this phenomenon, the paper proposes an automatic zero - sample evaluation - oriented prompt optimization framework (ZEPO), aiming to produce more fair preference decisions, thereby improving the consistency between LLM evaluators and human judgments.