Alignment with human preferences is an important evaluation aspect of LLMs, requiring them to be helpful, honest, safe, and to precisely follow human instructions. Evaluating large language models' (LLMs) alignment typically involves directly assessing their open-ended responses, requiring human annotators or strong LLM judges. Conversely, LLMs themselves have also been extensively evaluated as judges for assessing alignment. In this work, we examine the relationship between LLMs' generation and evaluation capabilities in aligning with human preferences. To this end, we first conduct a comprehensive analysis of the generation-evaluation consistency (GE-consistency) among various LLMs, revealing a strong correlation between their generation and evaluation capabilities when evaluated by a strong LLM preference oracle. Utilizing this finding, we propose a benchmarking paradigm that measures LLM alignment with human preferences without directly evaluating their generated outputs, instead assessing LLMs in their role as evaluators. Our evaluation shows that our proposed benchmark, AlignEval, matches or surpasses widely used automatic LLM evaluation benchmarks, such as AlpacaEval and Arena-Hard, in capturing human preferences when ranking LLMs. Our study offers valuable insights into the connection between LLMs' generation and evaluation capabilities, and introduces a benchmark that assesses alignment without directly evaluating model outputs.

Reward models can significantly enhance the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs), but they typically require extensive curated data and costly training. To mitigate these challenges, training-free approaches such as LLM-as-a-Judge leverage the intrinsic reasoning abilities of LLMs to evaluate responses, achieving promising results. Recent works have also indicated that model confidence can serve effectively as a reward metric, distinguishing between chain-of-thought (CoT) and non-CoT paths. However, the concept of using confidence as a reward has not been comprehensively studied. In this work, we systematically investigate Confidence-as-a-Reward (CRew), a simple yet powerful training-free method that utilizes token-level confidence in the model's final answers as a proxy for reward, especially suitable for close-ended tasks. Through extensive experiments on mathematical reasoning tasks, we demonstrate that CRew outperforms existing training-free reward approaches on the MATH500 and RewardMATH benchmarks, and even surpasses most trained reward models. We further identify a strong correlation between CRew scores and the actual reasoning performance of the model. Additionally, we find that CRew can effectively filter high-quality training data. Building upon these insights, we propose CRew-DPO, a training strategy that constructs preference data from confidence scores combined with correctness signals. Finetuning with CRew-DPO further enhances the model's judging capabilities and consistently outperforms existing self-training methods.

Process Reward Model (PRM) is widely used in the post-training of Large Language Model (LLM) because it can perform fine-grained evaluation of the reasoning steps of generated content. However, most PRMs lack long-term reasoning and deep thinking capabilities. On the other hand, although a few works have tried to introduce Chain-of-Thought capability into PRMs, the annotation cost of CoT-PRM data is too expensive to play a stable role in various tasks. To address the above challenges, we propose VRPRM, a process reward model via visual reasoning, and design an efficient two-stage training strategy. Experimental results show that using only 3.6K CoT-PRM SFT data and 50K non-CoT PRM RL training data, VRPRM can surpass the non-thinking PRM with a total data volume of 400K and achieved a relative performance improvement of up to 118\% over the base model in the BoN experiment. This result confirms that the proposed combined training strategy can achieve higher quality reasoning capabilities at a lower data annotation cost, thus providing a new paradigm for PRM training with more efficient data utilization.

Using Large Language Models (LLMs) to evaluate and compare two answers from different models typically involves having LLM-based judges select the better answer. However, humans often approach problem-solving from a reverse perspective, for instance, by choosing the worse option instead of the better one in a pairwise comparison. Generally, this kind of reverse thinking plays a crucial role in human reasoning and decision-making and can further test the difference between original and reverse thought processes simultaneously. To address the above issue, in this paper, we propose a Goal-Reversed Prompting (GRP) approach for pairwise evaluation that shifts the original task from selecting the better answer to choosing the worse one. We encourage LLMs to think in reverse by prompting LLMs to identify the worse response. Experiments on closed-source models demonstrate that GRP significantly enhances evaluation capabilities, outperforming the prompt template with the original goal.

Previous research has shown that LLMs have potential in multilingual NLG evaluation tasks. However, existing research has not fully explored the differences in the evaluation capabilities of LLMs across different languages. To this end, this study provides a comprehensive analysis of the multilingual evaluation performance of 10 recent LLMs, spanning high-resource and low-resource languages through correlation analysis, perturbation attacks, and fine-tuning. We found that 1) excluding the reference answer from the prompt and using large-parameter LLM-based evaluators leads to better performance across various languages; 2) most LLM-based evaluators show a higher correlation with human judgments in high-resource languages than in low-resource languages; 3) in the languages where they are most sensitive to such attacks, they also tend to exhibit the highest correlation with human judgments; and 4) fine-tuning with data from a particular language yields a broadly consistent enhancement in the model's evaluation performance across diverse languages. Our findings highlight the imbalance in LLMs'evaluation capabilities across different languages and suggest that low-resource language scenarios deserve more attention.

In NLG meta-evaluation, evaluation metrics are typically assessed based on their consistency with humans. However, we identify some limitations in traditional NLG meta-evaluation approaches, such as issues in handling human ratings and ambiguous selections of correlation measures, which undermine the effectiveness of meta-evaluation. In this work, we propose a dual-perspective NLG meta-evaluation framework that focuses on different evaluation capabilities, thereby providing better interpretability. In addition, we introduce a method of automatically constructing the corresponding benchmarks without requiring new human annotations. Furthermore, we conduct experiments with 16 representative LLMs as the evaluators based on our proposed framework, comprehensively analyzing their evaluation performance from different perspectives.

The acceleration of Large Language Models (LLMs) research has opened up new possibilities for evaluating generated texts. They serve as scalable and economical evaluators, but the question of how reliable these evaluators are has emerged as a crucial research question. Prior research efforts in the meta-evaluation of LLMs as judges limit the prompting of an LLM to a single use to obtain a final evaluation decision. They then compute the agreement between LLMs' outputs and human labels. This lacks interpretability in understanding the evaluation capability of LLMs. In light of this challenge, we propose Decompose and Aggregate, which breaks down the evaluation process into different stages based on pedagogical practices. Our experiments illustrate that it not only provides a more interpretable window for how well LLMs evaluate, but also leads to improvements up to 39.6% for different LLMs on a variety of meta-evaluation benchmarks.

Federated Learning (FL) has emerged as a promising solution for collaborative training of large language models (LLMs). However, the integration of LLMs into FL introduces new challenges, particularly concerning the evaluation of LLMs. Traditional evaluation methods that rely on labeled test sets and similarity-based metrics cover only a subset of the acceptable answers, thereby failing to accurately reflect the performance of LLMs on generative tasks. Meanwhile, although automatic evaluation methods that leverage advanced LLMs present potential, they face critical risks of data leakage due to the need to transmit data to external servers and suboptimal performance on downstream tasks due to the lack of domain knowledge. To address these issues, we propose a Federated Evaluation framework of Large Language Models, named FedEval-LLM, that provides reliable performance measurements of LLMs on downstream tasks without the reliance on labeled test sets and external tools, thus ensuring strong privacy-preserving capability. FedEval-LLM leverages a consortium of personalized LLMs from participants as referees to provide domain knowledge and collective evaluation capability, thus aligning to the respective downstream tasks and mitigating uncertainties and biases associated with a single referee. Experimental results demonstrate a significant improvement in the evaluation capability of personalized evaluation models on downstream tasks. When applied to FL, these evaluation models exhibit strong agreement with human preference and RougeL-score on meticulously curated test sets. FedEval-LLM effectively overcomes the limitations of traditional metrics and the reliance on external services, making it a promising framework for the evaluation of LLMs within collaborative training scenarios.

Evaluating natural language generation (NLG) is a vital but challenging problem in artificial intelligence. Traditional evaluation metrics mainly capturing content (e.g. n-gram) overlap between system outputs and references are far from satisfactory, and large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT have demonstrated great potential in NLG evaluation in recent years. Various automatic evaluation methods based on LLMs have been proposed, including metrics derived from LLMs, prompting LLMs, and fine-tuning LLMs with labeled evaluation data. In this survey, we first give a taxonomy of LLM-based NLG evaluation methods, and discuss their pros and cons, respectively. We also discuss human-LLM collaboration for NLG evaluation. Lastly, we discuss several open problems in this area and point out future research directions.