@inproceedings{liu-etal-2024-empirical,
title = "An Empirical Analysis on Large Language Models in Debate Evaluation",
author = "Liu, Xinyi and
Liu, Pinxin and
He, Hangfeng",
editor = "Ku, Lun-Wei and
Martins, Andre and
Srikumar, Vivek",
booktitle = "Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers)",
month = aug,
year = "2024",
address = "Bangkok, Thailand",
publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
url = "https://aclanthology.org/2024.luhme-short.44/",
doi = "10.18653/v1/2024.acl-short.44",
pages = "470--487",
abstract = "In this study, we investigate the capabilities and inherent biases of advanced large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 in the context of debate evaluation. We discover that LLM`s performance exceeds humans and surpasses the performance of state-of-the-art methods fine-tuned on extensive datasets. We additionally explore and analyze biases present in LLMs, including positional bias, lexical bias, order bias, which may affect their evaluative judgments. Our findings reveal a consistent bias in both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 towards the second candidate response presented, attributed to prompt design. We also uncover a lexical bias in both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, especially when label sets carry connotations such as numerical or sequential, highlighting the critical need for careful label verbalizer selection in prompt design. Additionally, our analysis indicates a tendency of both models to favor the debate`s concluding side as the winner, suggesting an end-of-discussion bias."
}
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<modsCollection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
<mods ID="liu-etal-2024-empirical">
<titleInfo>
<title>An Empirical Analysis on Large Language Models in Debate Evaluation</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Xinyi</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Liu</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Pinxin</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Liu</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Hangfeng</namePart>
<namePart type="family">He</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<dateIssued>2024-08</dateIssued>
</originInfo>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<relatedItem type="host">
<titleInfo>
<title>Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers)</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Lun-Wei</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Ku</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Andre</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Martins</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Vivek</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Srikumar</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<publisher>Association for Computational Linguistics</publisher>
<place>
<placeTerm type="text">Bangkok, Thailand</placeTerm>
</place>
</originInfo>
<genre authority="marcgt">conference publication</genre>
</relatedItem>
<abstract>In this study, we investigate the capabilities and inherent biases of advanced large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 in the context of debate evaluation. We discover that LLM‘s performance exceeds humans and surpasses the performance of state-of-the-art methods fine-tuned on extensive datasets. We additionally explore and analyze biases present in LLMs, including positional bias, lexical bias, order bias, which may affect their evaluative judgments. Our findings reveal a consistent bias in both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 towards the second candidate response presented, attributed to prompt design. We also uncover a lexical bias in both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, especially when label sets carry connotations such as numerical or sequential, highlighting the critical need for careful label verbalizer selection in prompt design. Additionally, our analysis indicates a tendency of both models to favor the debate‘s concluding side as the winner, suggesting an end-of-discussion bias.</abstract>
<identifier type="citekey">liu-etal-2024-empirical</identifier>
<identifier type="doi">10.18653/v1/2024.acl-short.44</identifier>
<location>
<url>https://aclanthology.org/2024.luhme-short.44/</url>
</location>
<part>
<date>2024-08</date>
<extent unit="page">
<start>470</start>
<end>487</end>
</extent>
</part>
</mods>
</modsCollection>
%0 Conference Proceedings
%T An Empirical Analysis on Large Language Models in Debate Evaluation
%A Liu, Xinyi
%A Liu, Pinxin
%A He, Hangfeng
%Y Ku, Lun-Wei
%Y Martins, Andre
%Y Srikumar, Vivek
%S Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers)
%D 2024
%8 August
%I Association for Computational Linguistics
%C Bangkok, Thailand
%F liu-etal-2024-empirical
%X In this study, we investigate the capabilities and inherent biases of advanced large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 in the context of debate evaluation. We discover that LLM‘s performance exceeds humans and surpasses the performance of state-of-the-art methods fine-tuned on extensive datasets. We additionally explore and analyze biases present in LLMs, including positional bias, lexical bias, order bias, which may affect their evaluative judgments. Our findings reveal a consistent bias in both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 towards the second candidate response presented, attributed to prompt design. We also uncover a lexical bias in both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, especially when label sets carry connotations such as numerical or sequential, highlighting the critical need for careful label verbalizer selection in prompt design. Additionally, our analysis indicates a tendency of both models to favor the debate‘s concluding side as the winner, suggesting an end-of-discussion bias.
%R 10.18653/v1/2024.acl-short.44
%U https://aclanthology.org/2024.luhme-short.44/
%U https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.acl-short.44
%P 470-487
Markdown (Informal)
[An Empirical Analysis on Large Language Models in Debate Evaluation](https://aclanthology.org/2024.luhme-short.44/) (Liu et al., ACL 2024)
ACL