Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2402.10669v1

The authors of this study developed a novel framework to investigate biases in human and Large Language Model (LLM) judges. They focused on five specific types of biases and found significant inclinations in both human and LLM judges. The study also revealed that these weaknesses can be exploited under LLM judgment. By shedding light on the vulnerabilities and biases present in both human and LLM judges when evaluating performance, the authors hope to contribute to a deeper understanding of these issues. They emphasize the importance of developing robust evaluation systems and encourage expanded evaluation efforts by leveraging an open-sourced dataset for further research. <br> <br> The study involved 60 human evaluators from various countries who were selected based on specific criteria related to English proficiency, logic skills, and educational background. These evaluators participated in experiments where they were tasked with evaluating the quality of answers to questions. The control group performed 2162 evaluation tasks while the experiment group performed 2367 tasks. Detailed instructions were provided to ensure a clear understanding of the evaluation criteria.<br> <br> Evaluators were instructed to focus solely on the semantic quality of answers and disregard non-semantic factors such as tone or format. They were also given guidelines on how to handle situations where both responses seemed equally good or bad.<br> <br> Overall, this study highlights the presence of biases in both human and LLM judges when evaluating performance. It emphasizes the need for robust evaluation systems and encourages further research using an open-sourced dataset.<br> <br> Through their research, the authors aim to contribute towards a deeper understanding of biases inherent in both LLMs and human evaluators. By encouraging expanded evaluation efforts, they hope to enhance understanding of bias in LLMs and human judgment processes.

• - The study developed a novel framework to investigate biases in human and Large Language Model (LLM) judges.
• - Five specific types of biases were focused on, with significant inclinations found in both human and LLM judges.
• - Weaknesses identified can be exploited under LLM judgment.
• - Importance of shedding light on vulnerabilities and biases in both human and LLM judges when evaluating performance for deeper understanding.
• - Emphasis on developing robust evaluation systems and encouraging expanded evaluation efforts using an open-sourced dataset for further research.

Summary1. A new way was created to look at unfairness in people and computer judges who analyze language. 2. They looked at five different kinds of unfairness and found that both people and computers have strong preferences. 3. They found areas where the computer judges are not very good at making decisions. 4. It's important to understand and talk about the weaknesses and biases in both people and computer judges when we want to know how well they are doing. 5. We need to make better ways to check how fair these judges are, and we should use a shared set of data for more research. Definitions- Biases: Unfair preferences or opinions that can affect judgment - Framework: A structure or plan for doing something - Vulnerabilities: Weaknesses or areas where mistakes can happen - Robust: Strong and reliable - Evaluation: Judging or assessing something to see how well it is working

Introduction

The use of Large Language Models (LLMs) has become increasingly prevalent in various fields, including natural language processing, information retrieval, and question-answering systems. These models have shown impressive performance in tasks such as text generation and language translation. However, recent studies have raised concerns about the potential biases present in LLMs and their impact on decision-making processes. In this study, the authors developed a novel framework to investigate biases in human and LLM judges when evaluating performance. They focused on five specific types of biases and found significant inclinations in both human and LLM judges. The study also revealed that these weaknesses can be exploited under LLM judgment.

The Need for Robust Evaluation Systems

Evaluation is an essential aspect of any system's development process as it helps assess its effectiveness and identify areas for improvement. However, the presence of biases can significantly affect the evaluation process's accuracy and reliability. The authors highlight the importance of developing robust evaluation systems that can account for inherent biases in both human evaluators and LLMs. This is crucial to ensure fair evaluations that accurately reflect performance without being influenced by personal or systemic biases.

Methodology

To conduct their research, the authors selected 60 human evaluators from different countries based on specific criteria related to English proficiency, logic skills, and educational background. These evaluators participated in experiments where they were tasked with evaluating the quality of answers to questions. The control group consisted of 30 evaluators who performed 2162 evaluation tasks while the experiment group consisted of 30 evaluators who performed 2367 tasks. Detailed instructions were provided to ensure a clear understanding of the evaluation criteria.

Evaluation Criteria

Evaluators were instructed to focus solely on the semantic quality of answers and disregard non-semantic factors such as tone or format. This was to ensure that the evaluation process was based on the content of the responses rather than any external factors. The authors also provided guidelines on how to handle situations where both responses seemed equally good or bad. This helped maintain consistency in the evaluation process and reduce potential biases.

Findings

The study revealed significant inclinations towards five types of biases - confirmation bias, anchoring bias, availability bias, recency bias, and framing effect - in both human and LLM judges. These biases can lead to inaccurate evaluations and potentially affect decision-making processes. Moreover, the study found that these weaknesses can be exploited under LLM judgment. This highlights the need for further research to understand how these biases may impact LLMs' performance and decision-making abilities.

Open-Sourced Dataset

To encourage expanded evaluation efforts, the authors have made their dataset open-sourced for further research. This will allow other researchers to replicate their experiments and build upon their findings. It also provides an opportunity to develop more robust evaluation systems by leveraging a larger dataset.

Conclusion

This study sheds light on the vulnerabilities and biases present in both human and LLM judges when evaluating performance. By highlighting these issues, the authors hope to contribute towards a deeper understanding of biases inherent in both LLMs and human evaluators. The study emphasizes the importance of developing robust evaluation systems that can account for these biases. It also encourages expanded evaluation efforts using an open-sourced dataset for further research. By doing so, we can enhance our understanding of bias in LLMs and human judgment processes, leading to fairer evaluations and better decision-making outcomes.