positional bias

Aligning large language models (LLMs) to human values has become increasingly important as it enables sophisticated steering of LLMs. However, it requires significant human demonstrations and feedback or distillation from proprietary LLMs such as ChatGPT. In this work, we propose a novel alignment learning framework with synthetic feedback not dependent on extensive human annotations and proprietary LLMs. First, we perform reward modeling (RM) with synthetic feedback by contrasting responses from vanilla LLMs with various sizes and prompts. Then, we use the RM to simulate high-quality demonstrations to train a supervised policy and further optimize the model with reinforcement learning. Our resulting model, Aligned Language Model with Synthetic Training dataset (ALMoST), outperforms recent open-sourced models, which are trained on the outputs of InstructGPT or human-annotated demonstrations, in alignment benchmarks. In human evaluation, our model is preferred to Alpaca and Dolly-v2, 55.0% and 58.5% of the time, respectively. Further analyses demonstrate the efficacy and importance of synthetic feedback in our framework 1.

Adopting human and large language models (LLM) as judges (a.k.a human- and LLM-as-a-judge) for evaluating the performance of LLMs has recently gained attention. Nonetheless, this approach concurrently introduces potential biases from human and LLMs, questioning the reliability of the evaluation results. In this paper, we propose a novel framework that is free from referencing groundtruth annotations for investigating Misinformation Oversight Bias, Gender Bias, Authority Bias and Beauty Bias on LLM and human judges. We curate a dataset referring to the revised Bloom's Taxonomy and conduct thousands of evaluations. Results show that human and LLM judges are vulnerable to perturbations to various degrees, and that even the cutting-edge judges possess considerable biases. We further exploit these biases to conduct attacks on LLM judges. We hope that our work can notify the community of the bias and vulnerability of human- and LLM-as-a-judge, as well as the urgency of developing robust evaluation systems.

In this paper, we uncover a positional bias in the evaluation paradigm of adopting large language models (LLMs), e.g., GPT-4, as a referee to score and compare the quality of responses generated by candidate models. We find that the quality ranking of candidate responses can be easily hacked by simply altering their order of appearance in the context. This manipulation allows us to skew the evaluation result, making one model appear considerably superior to the other, e.g., Vicuna-13B could beat ChatGPT on 66 over 80 tested queries with ChatGPT as an evaluator. We propose a simple yet effective calibration framework to address our discovered positional bias. To evaluate the effectiveness of our framework, we manually annotate the “win/tie/lose” outcomes of responses from ChatGPT and Vicuna-13B in the Vicuna Benchmark’s question prompt. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our approach successfully alleviates evaluation bias, resulting in closer alignment with human judgments. To facilitate future research on more robust large language model comparison, we integrate the techniques in the paper into an easy-to-use toolkit FairEval, along with the human annotations 1.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are powerful zero-shot assessors used in real-world situations such as assessing written exams and benchmarking systems. Despite these critical applications, no existing work has analyzed the vulnerability of judge-LLMs to adversarial manipulation. This work presents the first study on the adversarial robustness of assessment LLMs, where we demonstrate that short universal adversarial phrases can be concatenated to deceive judge LLMs to predict inflated scores. Since adversaries may not know or have access to the judge-LLMs, we propose a simple surrogate attack where a surrogate model is first attacked, and the learned attack phrase then transferred to unknown judge-LLMs. We propose a practical algorithm to determine the short universal attack phrases and demonstrate that when transferred to unseen models, scores can be drastically inflated such that irrespective of the assessed text, maximum scores are predicted. It is found that judge-LLMs are significantly more susceptible to these adversarial attacks when used for absolute scoring, as opposed to comparative assessment. Our findings raise concerns on the reliability of LLM-as-a-judge methods, and emphasize the importance of addressing vulnerabilities in LLM assessment methods before deployment in high-stakes real-world scenarios.