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

JudgeLM: Fine-tuned Large Language Models are Scalable Judges

About

Evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) in open-ended scenarios is challenging because existing benchmarks and metrics can not measure them comprehensively. To address this problem, we propose to fine-tune LLMs as scalable judges (JudgeLM) to evaluate LLMs efficiently and effectively in open-ended benchmarks. We first propose a comprehensive, large-scale, high-quality dataset containing task seeds, LLMs-generated answers, and GPT-4-generated judgments for fine-tuning high-performance judges, as well as a new benchmark for evaluating the judges. We train JudgeLM at different scales from 7B, 13B, to 33B parameters, and conduct a systematic analysis of its capabilities and behaviors. We then analyze the key biases in fine-tuning LLM as a judge and consider them as position bias, knowledge bias, and format bias. To address these issues, JudgeLM introduces a bag of techniques including swap augmentation, reference support, and reference drop, which clearly enhance the judge's performance. JudgeLM obtains the state-of-the-art judge performance on both the existing PandaLM benchmark and our proposed new benchmark. Our JudgeLM is efficient and the JudgeLM-7B only needs 3 minutes to judge 5K samples with 8 A100 GPUs. JudgeLM obtains high agreement with the teacher judge, achieving an agreement exceeding 90% that even surpasses human-to-human agreement. JudgeLM also demonstrates extended capabilities in being judges of the single answer, multimodal models, multiple answers, multi-turn chat, etc. Code is available at https://github.com/baaivision/JudgeLM.

Lianghui Zhu, Xinggang Wang, Xinlong Wang• 2023

Related benchmarks

TaskDatasetResultRank
Commonsense ReasoningCSQA
Accuracy59.84
366
Pointwise GradingAlignBench
Pearson (r)0.984
38
Judgment Bias EvaluationJudgeBiasBench (test)
Length Bias Score59.1
18
Pairwise ComparisonAlignBench
Agreement42.5
18
LLM-as-a-JudgeFairJudge Benchmark 1K (test)
Agreement69.56
13
LLM-as-a-JudgeJudgeLM (test)
Agreement78
13
LLM-as-a-JudgePandaLM Human Annotations (test)
Agreement0.6677
13
LLM EvaluationPandaLM
Accuracy66.97
12
Reward Modeling EvaluationReward-Bench
Agreement46.57
12
Pairwise ComparisonLLMEval
Agreement0.4477
10
Showing 10 of 11 rows

Other info

Follow for update