Pingchuan Ma

Zongjie Li, Chaozheng Wang, Pingchuan Ma et al.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise as automated evaluators for assessing the quality of answers generated by AI systems. However, these LLM-based evaluators exhibit position bias, or inconsistency, when used to evaluate candidate answers in pairwise comparisons, favoring either the first or second answer regardless of content. To address this limitation, we propose PORTIA, an alignment-based system designed to mimic human comparison strategies to calibrate position bias in a lightweight yet effective manner. Specifically, PORTIA splits the answers into multiple segments, aligns similar content across candidate answers, and then merges them back into a single prompt for evaluation by LLMs. We conducted extensive experiments with six diverse LLMs to evaluate 11,520 answer pairs. Our results show that PORTIA markedly enhances the consistency rates for all the models and comparison forms tested, achieving an average relative improvement of 47.46%. Remarkably, PORTIA enables less advanced GPT models to achieve 88% agreement with the state-of-the-art GPT-4 model at just 10% of the cost. Furthermore, it rectifies around 80% of the position bias instances within the GPT-4 model, elevating its consistency rate up to 98%. Subsequent human evaluations indicate that the PORTIA-enhanced GPT-3.5 model can even surpass the standalone GPT-4 in terms of alignment with human evaluators. These findings highlight PORTIA's ability to correct position bias, improve LLM consistency, and boost performance while keeping cost-efficiency. This represents a valuable step toward a more reliable and scalable use of LLMs for automated evaluations across diverse applications.

Zongjie Li, Chaozheng Wang, Chaowei Liu et al.

With recent advancements in Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) across various domains, a novel prompting method called visual referring prompting has emerged, showing significant potential in enhancing human-computer interaction within multimodal systems. This method offers a more natural and flexible approach to human interaction with these systems compared to traditional text descriptions or coordinates. However, the categorization of visual referring prompting remains undefined, and its impact on the performance of LMMs has yet to be formally examined. In this study, we conduct the first comprehensive analysis of LMMs using a variety of visual referring prompting strategies. We introduce a benchmark dataset called VRPTEST, comprising 3 different visual tasks and 2,275 images, spanning diverse combinations of prompt strategies. Using VRPTEST, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation of eight versions of prominent open-source and proprietary foundation models, including two early versions of GPT-4V. We develop an automated assessment framework based on software metamorphic testing techniques to evaluate the accuracy of LMMs without the need for human intervention or manual labeling. We find that the current proprietary models generally outperform the open-source ones, showing an average accuracy improvement of 22.70%; however, there is still potential for improvement. Moreover, our quantitative analysis shows that the choice of prompt strategy significantly affects the accuracy of LMMs, with variations ranging from -17.5% to +7.3%. Further case studies indicate that an appropriate visual referring prompting strategy can improve LMMs' understanding of context and location information, while an unsuitable one might lead to answer rejection. We also provide insights on minimizing the negative impact of visual referring prompting on LMMs.