As research in large language models (LLMs) continues to accelerate, LLM-based evaluation has emerged as a scalable and cost-effective alternative to human evaluations for comparing the ever increasing list of models. This paper investigates the efficacy of these "LLM evaluators", particularly in using them to assess instruction following, a metric that gauges how closely generated text adheres to the given instruction. We introduce a challenging meta-evaluation benchmark, LLMBar, designed to test the ability of an LLM evaluator in discerning instruction-following outputs. The authors manually curated 419 pairs of outputs, one adhering to instructions while the other diverging, yet may possess deceptive qualities that mislead an LLM evaluator, e.g., a more engaging tone. Contrary to existing meta-evaluation, we discover that different evaluators (i.e., combinations of LLMs and prompts) exhibit distinct performance on LLMBar and even the highest-scoring ones have substantial room for improvement. We also present a novel suite of prompting strategies that further close the gap between LLM and human evaluators. With LLMBar, we hope to offer more insight into LLM evaluators and foster future research in developing better instruction-following models.

这篇研究通过引入一个具有挑战性的元评估基准LMMBar，调查了大型语言模型(LLMs)在评估指导遵循生成文本方面的效力，发现不同评估器对LMMBar的性能表现不同，最高分的评估器仍有改进的空间，并提出了一套新颖的提示策略来缩小LLM和人类评估器之间的差距。通过LLMBar希望提供对LLM评估器的更多洞察，并促进未来开发更好的指导遵循模型的研究。

评价大型语言模型在指令遵循方面的表现