Black-box Uncertainty Quantification Method for LLM-as-a-Judge
read the original abstract
LLM-as-a-Judge is a widely used method for evaluating the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) across various tasks. We address the challenge of quantifying the uncertainty of LLM-as-a-Judge evaluations. While uncertainty quantification has been well-studied in other domains, applying it effectively to LLMs poses unique challenges due to their complex decision-making capabilities and computational demands. In this paper, we introduce a novel method for quantifying uncertainty designed to enhance the trustworthiness of LLM-as-a-Judge evaluations. The method quantifies uncertainty by analyzing the relationships between generated assessments and possible ratings. By cross-evaluating these relationships and constructing a confusion matrix based on token probabilities, the method derives labels of high or low uncertainty. We evaluate our method across multiple benchmarks, demonstrating a strong correlation between the accuracy of LLM evaluations and the derived uncertainty scores. Our findings suggest that this method can significantly improve the reliability and consistency of LLM-as-a-Judge evaluations.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
VLM Judges Can Rank but Cannot Score: Task-Dependent Uncertainty in Multimodal Evaluation
VLM judges exhibit task-dependent uncertainty in their scores, with conformal prediction revealing wide intervals for complex tasks and a decoupling between good ranking performance and poor absolute scoring reliability.
-
Rating Roulette: Self-Inconsistency in LLM-As-A-Judge Frameworks
LLM judges show low intra-rater reliability, producing inconsistent and sometimes arbitrary ratings across repeated evaluations on NLG tasks.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.