Lune

ACL2024Top-tier venue

Favi-Score: A Measure for Favoritism in Automated Preference Ratings for Generative AI Evaluation

Pius von Däniken, Jan Deriu, Don Tuggener, Mark Cieliebak

Abstract

Generative AI systems have become ubiquitous for all kinds of modalities, which makes the issue of the evaluation of such models more pressing. One popular approach is preference ratings, where the generated outputs of different systems are shown to evaluators who choose their preferences. In recent years the field shifted towards the development of automated (trained) metrics to assess generated outputs, which can be used to create preference ratings automatically. In this work, we investigate the evaluation of the metrics themselves, which currently rely on measuring the correlation to human judgments or computing sign accuracy scores. These measures only assess how well the metric agrees with the human ratings. However, our research shows that this does not tell the whole story. Most metrics exhibit a disagreement with human system assessments which is often skewed in favor of particular text generation systems, exposing a degree of favoritism in automated metrics. This paper introduces a formal definition of favoritism in preference metrics, and derives the Favi-Score, which measures this phenomenon. In particular we show that favoritism is strongly related to errors in final system rankings. Thus, we propose that preference-based metrics ought to be evaluated on both sign accuracy scores and favoritism.

Ask Lune

Ask anything. The answer quotes the paper.

Lune reads all of it and the papers around it, then shows you the passages behind every answer.

Questions to start from

Lune answers from

the full paper · 1 top-tier paper that cites it · related work

Get the answer

Free to start. No credit card required.

Cited by top-tier papers1

  1. JuStRank: Benchmarking LLM Judges for System RankingAriel Gera, Odellia Boni, Yotam Perlitz, Roy Bar-Haim et al.ACL 2025

Builds on12

  1. Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language ModelsJason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 22,562 citations
  2. PandaLM: An Automatic Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Instruction Tuning OptimizationYidong Wang, Zhuohao Yu, Wenjin Yao, Zhengran Zeng et al.ICLR 2024 · 368 citations
  3. Learning to summarize with human feedbackNisan Stiennon, Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Daniel M. Ziegler et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 124 citations
  4. GRADE: Automatic Graph-Enhanced Coherence Metric for Evaluating Open-Domain Dialogue SystemsLishan Huang, Zheng Ye, Jinghui Qin, Liang Lin et al.EMNLP 2020 · 73 citations
  5. Towards Holistic and Automatic Evaluation of Open-Domain Dialogue GenerationBo Pang, Erik Nijkamp, Wenjuan Han, Linqi Zhou et al.ACL 2020 · 69 citations

Related papers

  1. LLMs as Narcissistic Evaluators: When Ego Inflates Evaluation ScoresYiqi Liu, Nafise Sadat Moosavi, Chenghua LinACL Findings 2024 · 13 citations
  2. Correction of Errors in Preference Ratings from Automated Metrics for Text GenerationJan Deriu, Pius von Däniken, Don Tuggener, Mark CieliebakACL Findings 2023
  3. Beyond the Surface: Measuring Self-Preference in LLM JudgmentsZhi-Yuan Chen, Hao Wang, Xinyu Zhang, Enrui Hu et al.EMNLP 2025
  4. On the Limitations of Reference-Free Evaluations of Generated TextDaniel Deutsch, Rotem Dror, Dan RothEMNLP 2022 · 23 citations
  5. LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own GenerationsArjun Panickssery, Samuel R. Bowman, Shi FengNeurIPS 2024 · 865 citations
Dusk over the sea between two cliffs drawn in fine vertical lines