Benchmark contamination has become a significant concern in the LLM evaluation community. Previous Agents-as-an-Evaluator address this issue by involving agents in the generation of questions. Despite their success, the biases in Agents-as-an-Evaluator methods remain largely unexplored. In this paper, we present a theoretical formulation of evaluation bias, providing valuable insights into designing unbiased evaluation protocols. Furthermore, we identify two type of bias in Agents-as-an-Evaluator through carefully designed probing tasks on a minimal Agents-as-an-Evaluator setup. To address these issues, we propose the Unbiased Evaluator, an evaluation protocol that delivers a more comprehensive, unbiased, and interpretable assessment of LLMs.Extensive experiments reveal significant room for improvement in current LLMs. Additionally, we demonstrate that the Unbiased Evaluator not only offers strong evidence of benchmark contamination but also provides interpretable evaluation results.

Current Large Language Models (LLMs) benchmarks are often based on open-ended or close-ended QA evaluations, avoiding the requirement of human labor. Close-ended measurements evaluate the factuality of responses but lack expressiveness. Open-ended capture the model's capacity to produce discourse responses but are harder to assess for correctness. These two approaches are commonly used, either independently or together, though their relationship remains poorly understood. This work is focused on the healthcare domain, where both factuality and discourse matter greatly. It introduces a comprehensive, multi-axis suite for healthcare LLM evaluation, exploring correlations between open and close benchmarks and metrics. Findings include blind spots and overlaps in current methodologies. As an updated sanity check, we release a new medical benchmark--CareQA--, with both open and closed variants. Finally, we propose a novel metric for open-ended evaluations --Relaxed Perplexity-- to mitigate the identified limitations.

Human-annotated preference data play an important role in aligning large language models (LLMs). In this paper, we investigate the questions of assessing the performance of human annotators and incentivizing them to provide high-quality annotations. The quality assessment of language/text annotation faces two challenges: (i) the intrinsic heterogeneity among annotators, which prevents the classic methods that assume the underlying existence of a true label; and (ii) the unclear relationship between the annotation quality and the performance of downstream tasks, which excludes the possibility of inferring the annotators' behavior based on the model performance trained from the annotation data. Then we formulate a principal-agent model to characterize the behaviors of and the interactions between the company and the human annotators. The model rationalizes a practical mechanism of a bonus scheme to incentivize annotators which benefits both parties and it underscores the importance of the joint presence of an assessment system and a proper contract scheme. From a technical perspective, our analysis extends the existing literature on the principal-agent model by considering a continuous action space for the agent. We show the gap between the first-best and the second-best solutions (under the continuous action space) is of $\Theta(1/\sqrt{n \log n})$ for the binary contracts and $\Theta(1/n)$ for the linear contracts, where $n$ is the number of samples used for performance assessment; this contrasts with the known result of $\exp(-\Theta(n))$ for the binary contracts when the action space is discrete. Throughout the paper, we use real preference annotation data to accompany our discussions.

We present PRINCIPLE-BASED PROMPTING, a simple but effective multi-agent prompting strategy for text classification. It first asks multiple LLM agents to independently generate candidate principles based on analysis of demonstration samples with or without labels, consolidates them into final principles via a finalizer agent, and then sends them to a classifier agent to perform downstream classification tasks. Extensive experiments on binary and multi-class classification datasets with different sizes of LLMs show that our approach not only achieves substantial performance gains (1.55% - 19.37%) over zero-shot prompting on macro-F1 score but also outperforms other strong baselines (CoT and stepback prompting). Principles generated by our approach help LLMs perform better on classification tasks than human crafted principles on two private datasets. Our multi-agent PRINCIPLE-BASED PROMPTING approach also shows on-par or better performance compared to demonstration-based few-shot prompting approaches, yet with substantially lower inference costs. Ablation studies show that label information and the multi-agent cooperative LLM framework play an important role in generating high-quality principles to facilitate downstream classification tasks.

Existing encoder-free vision-language models (VLMs) are rapidly narrowing the performance gap with their encoder-based counterparts, highlighting the promising potential for unified multimodal systems with structural simplicity and efficient deployment. We systematically clarify the performance gap between VLMs using pre-trained vision encoders, discrete tokenizers, and minimalist visual layers from scratch, deeply excavating the under-examined characteristics of encoder-free VLMs. We develop efficient strategies for encoder-free VLMs that rival mainstream encoder-based ones. After an in-depth investigation, we launch EVEv2.0, a new and improved family of encoder-free VLMs. We show that: (i) Properly decomposing and hierarchically associating vision and language within a unified model reduces interference between modalities. (ii) A well-designed training strategy enables effective optimization for encoder-free VLMs. Through extensive evaluation, our EVEv2.0 represents a thorough study for developing a decoder-only architecture across modalities, demonstrating superior data efficiency and strong vision-reasoning capability. Code is publicly available at: https://github.com/baaivision/EVE.

Existing approaches to multilingual text detoxification are hampered by the scarcity of parallel multilingual datasets. In this work, we introduce a pipeline for the generation of multilingual parallel detoxification data. We also introduce SynthDetoxM, a manually collected and synthetically generated multilingual parallel text detoxification dataset comprising 16,000 high-quality detoxification sentence pairs across German, French, Spanish and Russian. The data was sourced from different toxicity evaluation datasets and then rewritten with nine modern open-source LLMs in few-shot setting. Our experiments demonstrate that models trained on the produced synthetic datasets have superior performance to those trained on the human-annotated MultiParaDetox dataset even in data limited setting. Models trained on SynthDetoxM outperform all evaluated LLMs in few-shot setting. We release our dataset and code to help further research in multilingual text detoxification.

Recent advances on instruction fine-tuning have led to the development of various prompting techniques for large language models, such as explicit reasoning steps. However, the success of techniques depends on various parameters, such as the task, language model, and context provided. Finding an effective prompt is, therefore, often a trial-and-error process. Most existing approaches to automatic prompting aim to optimize individual techniques instead of compositions of techniques and their dependence on the input. To fill this gap, we propose an adaptive prompting approach that predicts the optimal prompt composition ad-hoc for a given input. We apply our approach to social bias detection, a highly context-dependent task that requires semantic understanding. We evaluate it with three large language models on three datasets, comparing compositions to individual techniques and other baselines. The results underline the importance of finding an effective prompt composition. Our approach robustly ensures high detection performance, and is best in several settings. Moreover, first experiments on other tasks support its generalizability.

Model distillation -- using outputs from a large teacher model to teach a small student model -- is a practical means of creating efficient models for a particular task. We ask: Can we identify a students' teacher based on its outputs? Such "footprints" left by teacher LLMs would be interesting artifacts. Beyond this, reliable teacher inference may have practical implications as actors seek to distill specific capabilities of massive proprietary LLMs into deployed smaller LMs, potentially violating terms of service. We consider practical task distillation targets including summarization, question answering, and instruction-following. We assume a finite set of candidate teacher models, which we treat as blackboxes. We design discriminative models that operate over lexical features. We find that $n$-gram similarity alone is unreliable for identifying teachers, but part-of-speech (PoS) templates preferred by student models mimic those of their teachers.

To understand the complexity of sequence classification tasks, Hahn et al. (2021) proposed sensitivity as the number of disjoint subsets of the input sequence that can each be individually changed to change the output. Though effective, calculating sensitivity at scale using this framework is costly because of exponential time complexity. Therefore, we introduce a Sensitivity-based Multi-Armed Bandit framework (SMAB), which provides a scalable approach for calculating word-level local (sentence-level) and global (aggregated) sensitivities concerning an underlying text classifier for any dataset. We establish the effectiveness of our approach through various applications. We perform a case study on CHECKLIST generated sentiment analysis dataset where we show that our algorithm indeed captures intuitively high and low-sensitive words. Through experiments on multiple tasks and languages, we show that sensitivity can serve as a proxy for accuracy in the absence of gold data. Lastly, we show that guiding perturbation prompts using sensitivity values in adversarial example generation improves attack success rate by 15.58%, whereas using sensitivity as an additional reward in adversarial paraphrase generation gives a 12.00% improvement over SOTA approaches. Warning: Contains potentially offensive content.

The ability to achieve long-term goals is a key challenge in the current development of large language models (LLMs). To address this, pre-trained LLMs can be fine-tuned with reinforcement learning (RL) to explore solutions that optimize a given goal. However, exploration with LLMs is difficult, as a balance has to be struck between discovering new solutions and staying close enough to the pre-trained model, so as not to degrade basic capabilities. This is typically controlled with a Kullback-Leibler (KL) penalty. In this paper, we investigate the exploration dynamics of a small language model on a simple arithmetic task. We show how varying degrees of pre-training influence exploration and demonstrate the importance of "critical tokens" which have a dramatic impact on the final outcome. Consequently, we introduce a simple modification to the KL penalty that favors exploration on critical tokens, increasing the efficiency of the RL fine-tuning stage.