Can LLM be a Personalized Judge?
read the original abstract
Ensuring that large language models (LLMs) reflect diverse user values and preferences is crucial as their user bases expand globally. It is therefore encouraging to see the growing interest in LLM personalization within the research community. However, current works often rely on the LLM-as-a-Judge approach for evaluation without thoroughly examining its validity. In this paper, we investigate the reliability of LLM-as-a-Personalized-Judge, asking LLMs to judge user preferences based on personas. Our findings suggest that directly applying LLM-as-a-Personalized-Judge is less reliable than previously assumed, showing low and inconsistent agreement with human ground truth. The personas typically used are often overly simplistic, resulting in low predictive power. To address these issues, we introduce verbal uncertainty estimation into the LLM-as-a-Personalized-Judge pipeline, allowing the model to express low confidence on uncertain judgments. This adjustment leads to much higher agreement (above 80%) on high-certainty samples for binary tasks. Through human evaluation, we find that the LLM-as-a-Personalized-Judge achieves comparable performance to third-party humans evaluation and even surpasses human performance on high-certainty samples. Our work indicates that certainty-enhanced LLM-as-a-Personalized-Judge offers a promising direction for developing more reliable and scalable methods for evaluating LLM personalization.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet.
Forward citations
Cited by 8 Pith papers
-
Efficient Personalization of Generative User Interfaces
A dataset revealing high inter-designer disagreement on UI preferences motivates a sample-efficient method that personalizes generative interfaces by embedding new users in the space of prior designers, outperforming ...
-
AgentGR: Semantic-aware Agentic Group Decision-Making Simulator for Group Recommendation
AgentGR uses semantic-aware LLM agents to simulate group decision dynamics and improve group recommendation accuracy over traditional aggregation methods.
-
Creating and Evaluating Personas Using Generative AI: A Scoping Review of 81 Articles
A scoping review of 81 articles finds generative AI widely applied to persona development with 61% resource sharing but 45% lacking evaluation and frequent GPT-only use, proposing guidelines to address circularity and...
-
Informing AI Policy Assessment using Large-Scale Simulation of Interventions
A genetic algorithm exploring billions of policy combinations, scored by LLM-evaluated harm mitigation, expert cost, and participatory ratings, identifies viable AI policy options under different weighting schemes.
-
Meet Dynamic Individual Preferences: Resolving Conflicting Human Value with Paired Fine-Tuning
Preference-Paired Fine-Tuning (PFT) lets LLMs handle conflicting and dynamic individual preferences better than single-preference methods, reaching 96.6% accuracy on the new VCD dataset and 44.76% gains in user alignm...
-
SenseJudge: Human-Centric Preference-Driven Judgment Framework
SenseJudge proposes a human-preference-driven LLM judgment framework and SenseBench benchmark that claims to outperform prior methods in personalized judging and produce human-aligned model rankings.
-
A Survey on LLM-as-a-Judge
A survey on LLM-as-a-Judge that reviews reliability strategies, proposes evaluation methods, and introduces a novel benchmark for assessing such systems.
-
LLMs-as-Judges: A Comprehensive Survey on LLM-based Evaluation Methods
A survey that organizes LLMs-as-judges research into functionality, methodology, applications, meta-evaluation, and limitations.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.