Share your thoughts, 1 month free Claude Pro on usSee more
WorkDL logo mark

OffsetBias: Leveraging Debiased Data for Tuning Evaluators

About

Employing Large Language Models (LLMs) to assess the quality of generated responses, such as prompting instruct-tuned models or fine-tuning judge models, has become a widely adopted evaluation method. It is also known that such evaluators are vulnerable to biases, such as favoring longer responses. While it is important to overcome this problem, the specifics of these biases remain under-explored. In this work, we qualitatively identify six types of biases inherent in various judge models. We propose EvalBiasBench as a meta-evaluation collection of hand-crafted test cases for each bias type. Additionally, we present de-biasing dataset construction methods and the associated preference dataset OffsetBias. Experimental results demonstrate that fine-tuning on our dataset significantly enhances the robustness of judge models against biases and improves performance across most evaluation scenarios. We release our datasets and the fine-tuned judge model to public.

Junsoo Park, Seungyeon Jwa, Meiying Ren, Daeyoung Kim, Sanghyuk Choi• 2024

Related benchmarks

TaskDatasetResultRank
Reward ModelingRewardBench
Accuracy89
166
Reward ModelingRM-Bench
Accuracy71.3
125
Reward ModelingRMB
Accuracy57.8
120
Reward ModelingJudgeBench
Accuracy63.5
105
Reward ModelingRewardBench v1.0 (test)
Average Score0.89
89
Reward ModelingRewardBench v2
Accuracy64.8
72
Reward ModelingRM-Bench (test)
Overall Score71.3
63
Reward ModelingPPE-Preference
Accuracy59.2
60
Reward Modeling EvaluationRM-Bench
Chat Score71.3
55
Reward ModelingRewardBench v2 (test)
Average Score64.8
42
Showing 10 of 25 rows

Other info

Follow for update