Systematic Evaluation of LLM-as-a-Judge in LLM Alignment Tasks: Explainable Metrics and Diverse Prompt Templates

Alignment approaches such as RLHF and DPO are actively investigated to align large language models (LLMs) with human preferences. Commercial large language models (LLMs) like GPT-4 have been recently employed to evaluate and compare different LLM alignment approaches. These models act as surrogates for human evaluators due to their promising abilities to approximate human preferences with remarkably faster feedback and lower costs. This methodology is referred to as LLM-as-a-judge. However, concerns regarding its reliability have emerged, attributed to LLM judges' biases and inconsistent decision-making. Previous research has sought to develop robust evaluation frameworks for assessing the reliability of LLM judges and their alignment with human preferences. However, the employed evaluation metrics often lack adequate explainability and fail to address the internal inconsistency of LLMs. Additionally, existing studies inadequately explore the impact of various prompt templates when applying LLM-as-a-judge methods, which leads to potentially inconsistent comparisons between different alignment algorithms. In this work, we systematically evaluate LLM judges on alignment tasks (e.g. summarization) by defining evaluation metrics with improved theoretical interpretability and disentangling reliability metrics with LLM internal inconsistency. We develop a framework to evaluate, compare, and visualize the reliability and alignment of LLM judges to provide informative observations that help choose LLM judges for alignment tasks. Our results indicate a significant impact of prompt templates on LLM judge performance, as well as a mediocre alignment level between the tested LLM judges and human evaluators.

SAGE-NDVI: A Stereotype-Breaking Evaluation Metric for Remote Sensing Image Dehazing Using Satellite-to-Ground NDVI Knowledge

Image dehazing is a meaningful low-level computer vision task and can be applied to a variety of contexts. In our industrial deployment scenario based on remote sensing (RS) images, the quality of image dehazing directly affects the grade of our crop identification and growth monitoring products. However, the widely used peak signal-to-noise ratio (PSNR) and structural similarity index (SSIM) provide ambiguous visual interpretation. In this paper, we design a new objective metric for RS image dehazing evaluation. Our proposed metric leverages a ground-based phenology observation resource to calculate the vegetation index error between RS and ground images at a hazy date. Extensive experiments validate that our metric appropriately evaluates different dehazing models and is in line with human visual perception.