LLM-as-a-Judge & Reward Model: What They Can and Cannot Do
<|reference_start|>LLM-as-a-Judge & Reward Model: What They Can and Cannot Do: LLM-as-a-Judge and reward models are widely used alternatives of multiple-choice questions or human annotators for large language model (LLM) evaluation. Their efficacy shines in evaluating long-form responses, serving a critical role as evaluators of leaderboards and as proxies to align LLMs via reinforcement learning. However, despite their popularity, their effectiveness in diverse contexts, such as non-English prompts, factual verification, or challenging questions, remains unexplored. In this paper, we conduct a comprehensive analysis of automated evaluators, reporting several key findings on their behavior. First, we discover that English evaluation capabilities significantly influence language-specific evaluation capabilities, often more than the language proficiency itself, enabling evaluators trained in English to easily transfer their skills to other languages. Second, we identify critical shortcomings, where LLMs fail to detect and penalize errors, such as factual inaccuracies, cultural misrepresentations, and the presence of unwanted language. Finally, we find that state-of-the-art evaluators struggle with challenging prompts, in either English or Korean, underscoring their limitations in assessing or generating complex reasoning questions. We release the dataset and codes used.<|reference_end|>
@article{son2024llm-as-a-judge,
    title={LLM-as-a-Judge & Reward Model: What They Can and Cannot Do},
    author={Guijin Son, Hyunwoo Ko, Hoyoung Lee, Yewon Kim, Seunghyeok Hong},
    journal={arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.11239},
    year={2024},
    archivePrefix={arXiv},
    eprint={2409.11239},
    primaryClass={cs.CL}
}