REVIEW 8 cited by
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
LLMs as Narcissistic Evaluators: When Ego Inflates Evaluation Scores
read the original abstract
Automatic evaluation of generated textual content presents an ongoing challenge within the field of NLP. Given the impressive capabilities of modern language models (LMs) across diverse NLP tasks, there is a growing trend to employ these models in creating innovative evaluation metrics for automated assessment of generation tasks. This paper investigates a pivotal question: Do language model-driven evaluation metrics inherently exhibit bias favoring texts generated by the same underlying language model? Specifically, we assess whether prominent LM-based evaluation metrics (e.g. BARTScore, T5Score, and GPTScore) demonstrate a favorable bias toward their respective underlying LMs in the context of summarization tasks. Our findings unveil a latent bias, particularly pronounced when such evaluation metrics are used in a reference-free manner without leveraging gold summaries. These results underscore that assessments provided by generative evaluation models can be influenced by factors beyond the inherent text quality, highlighting the necessity of developing more reliable evaluation protocols in the future.
Forward citations
Cited by 8 Pith papers
-
Likelihood scoring for continuations of mathematical text: a self-supervised benchmark with tests for shortcut vulnerabilities
Presents a likelihood-based benchmark for equation-suffix prediction in technical papers with controls to detect shortcut vulnerabilities in model forecasts.
-
Likelihood scoring for continuations of mathematical text: a self-supervised benchmark with tests for shortcut vulnerabilities
A new benchmark uses separate predictor and scorer LLMs to test whether forecast strings improve likelihood of hidden mathematical equation continuations, with controls that detect priming shortcuts.
-
VLM-R1: A Stable and Generalizable R1-style Large Vision-Language Model
VLM-R1 applies R1-style RL using rule-based rewards on visual tasks with clear ground truth to achieve competitive performance and superior generalization over SFT in vision-language models.
-
LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generations
LLMs show measurable self-recognition that linearly correlates with self-preference bias in evaluations, supported by fine-tuning experiments and controls for confounders.
-
LLM-as-a-Verifier: A General-Purpose Verification Framework
Computing the expectation over scoring-token logits instead of taking argmax enables verification to scale along granularity, repetition, and criteria decomposition, achieving state-of-the-art on four agentic benchmar...
-
SingGuard: A Policy-Adaptive Multimodal LLM Guardrail with Dynamic Reasoning
SingGuard presents a policy-adaptive multimodal LLM guardrail family with hybrid reasoning regimes and a new benchmark of 56,340 examples, claiming SOTA F1 across 35 datasets and improved policy adherence under runtim...
-
SingGuard: A Policy-Adaptive Multimodal LLM Guardrail with Dynamic Reasoning
SingGuard introduces a policy-adaptive multimodal LLM guardrail with dynamic reasoning regimes and SingGuard-Bench, reporting SOTA F1 scores across 35 datasets and improved policy-following accuracy under runtime shifts.
-
WildFeedback: Aligning LLMs With In-situ User Interactions And Feedback
WildFeedback extracts preference pairs from in-situ user feedback in LLM conversations to fine-tune models for better alignment with real user preferences.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.