The DOI matches its DataCite record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
VibeCheck: Discover and Quantify Qualitative Differences in Large Language Models
Open accessAbstract
Large language models (LLMs) often exhibit subtle yet distinctive characteristics in their outputs that users intuitively recognize, but struggle to quantify. These "vibes" -- such as tone, formatting, or writing style -- influence user preferences, yet traditional evaluations focus primarily on the singular axis of correctness. We introduce VibeCheck, a system for automatically comparing a pair of LLMs by discovering identifying traits of a model (vibes) that are well-defined, differentiating, and user-aligned. VibeCheck iteratively discovers vibes from model outputs and then utilizes a panel of LLM judges to quantitatively measure the utility of each vibe. We validate that the vibes generated by VibeCheck align with those found in human discovery and run VibeCheck on pairwise preference data from real-world user conversations with Llama-3-70b vs GPT-4. VibeCheck reveals that Llama has a friendly, funny, and somewhat controversial vibe. These vibes predict model identity with 80% accuracy and human preference with 61% accuracy. Lastly, we run VibeCheck on a variety of models and tasks including summarization, math, and captioning to provide insight into differences in model behavior. VibeCheck discovers vibes like Command X prefers to add concrete intros and conclusions when summarizing in comparison to TNGL, Llama-405b often overexplains its thought process on math problems compared to GPT-4o, and GPT-4 prefers to focus on the mood and emotions of the scene when captioning compared to Gemini-1.5-Flash. Code and vibe visualizer found at https://bench-mark.org/
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Dunlap et al. (2024) introduce a framework for discovering and quantifying the qualitative differences between models that users notice through informal interaction but that standard benchmarks fail to capture, while Reka AI's Vibe-Eval (Padlewski et al., 2024) explicitly designs evaluation suites around these hard-toquantify aspects of model quality.”
From Lessons from the Trenches on Reproducible Evaluation of Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as Dunlap et al. (2024)
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Unsupervised Evaluation of Interactive Dialog with DialoGPT
Mehri, S., & Eskenazi, M. (2020) · Proceedings of the 21th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.sigdial-1.28 · Cited by 111
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 31
- Satanjeev Banerjee and Alon Lavie. METEOR: An automatic metric for MT evaluation with improved correlation with human judgments. In Jade Goldstein, Alon Lavie, Chin-Yew Lin, and Clare Voss (eds.), Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evaluation Measures for Machine Translation and/or Summarization, pp. 65-72, Ann Arbor, Michigan, June 2005. Association for Computational Linguistics. URL https://aclanthology.org/ W05-0909.
- BIG bench authors. Beyond the imitation game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models. Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2023. ISSN 2835-8856. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=uyTL5Bvosj.
- Courtni Byun, Piper Vasicek, and Kevin Seppi. Dispensing with humans in human-computer interaction research. In Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA '23, New York, NY, USA, 2023. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450394222. doi: 10.1145/3544549.3582749. URL https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3544549.3582749. · DOI
- Lin Chen, Jisong Li, Xiaoyi Dong, Pan Zhang, Conghui He, Jiaqi Wang, Feng Zhao, and Dahua Lin. Sharegpt4v: Improving large multi-modal models with better captions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.12793, 2023. · arXiv
- Mia Chiquier, Utkarsh Mall, and Carl Vondrick. Evolving interpretable visual classifiers with large language models. European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2024.
- Lisa Dunlap, Yuhui Zhang, Xiaohan Wang, Ruiqi Zhong, Trevor Darrell, Jacob Steinhardt, Joseph E. Gonzalez, and Serena Yeung-Levy. Describing differences in image sets with natural language. In Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2024b.
- Sebastian Gehrmann, Tosin Adewumi, Karmanya Aggarwal, Pawan Sasanka Ammanamanchi, An- uoluwapo Aremu, Antoine Bosselut, Khyathi Raghavi Chandu, Miruna-Adriana Clinciu, Dipanjan Das, Kaustubh Dhole, Wanyu Du, Esin Durmus, Ondřej Dušek, Chris Chinenye Emezue, Varun Gangal, Cristina Garbacea, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Yufang Hou, Yacine Jernite, Harsh Jhamtani, Yangfeng Ji, Shailza Jolly, Mihir Kale, Dhruv Kumar, Faisal Ladhak, Aman Madaan, Mounica Maddela, Khyati Mahajan, Saad Mahamood, Bodhisattwa Prasad Majumder, Pedro Henrique Martins, Angelina McMillan-Major, Simon Mille, Emiel van Miltenburg, Moin Nadeem, Shashi Narayan, Vitaly Nikolaev, Andre Niyongabo Rubungo, Salomey Osei, Ankur Parikh, Laura Perez-Beltrachini, Niranjan Ramesh Rao, Vikas Raunak, Juan Diego Rodriguez, Sashank San- thanam, João Sedoc, Thibault Sellam, Samira Shaikh, Anastasia Shimorina, Marco Antonio Sobrevilla Cabezudo, Hendrik Strobelt, Nishant Subramani, Wei Xu, Diyi Yang, Akhila Yerukola, and Jiawei Zhou. The GEM benchmark: Natural language generation, its evaluation and metrics. In Antoine Bosselut, Esin Durmus, Varun Prashant Gangal, Sebastian Gehrmann, Yacine Jernite, Laura Perez-Beltrachini, Samira Shaikh, and Wei Xu (eds.), Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Natural Language Generation, Evaluation, and Metrics (GEM 2021), pp. 96-120, Online, August 2021. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2021.gem-1.10. URL https://aclanthology.org/2021.gem-1. · DOI · Paper page
- Biyang Guo, Xin Zhang, Ziyuan Wang, Minqi Jiang, Jinran Nie, Yuxuan Ding, Jianwei Yue, and Yupeng Wu. How close is chatgpt to human experts? comparison corpus, evaluation, and detection. arXiv preprint arxiv:2301.07597, 2023. · arXiv
- Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou, Mantas Mazeika, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring massive multitask language understanding. Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2021a.
- Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Saurav Kadavath, Akul Arora, Steven Basart, Eric Tang, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.03874, 2021b. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2103. 03874. · DOI · Paper page
- Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Saurav Kadavath, Akul Arora, Steven Basart, Eric Tang, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset. NeurIPS, 2021c.
- Karl Moritz Hermann, Tomás Kociský, Edward Grefenstette, Lasse Espeholt, Will Kay, Mustafa Suleyman, and Phil Blunsom. Teaching machines to read and comprehend. In NIPS, pp. 1693-1701, 2015.
- Minsuk Kahng, Ian Tenney, Mahima Pushkarna, Michael Xieyang Liu, James Wexler, Emily Reif, Krystal Kallarackal, Minsuk Chang, Michael Terry, and Lucas Dixon. Llm comparator: Visual analytics for side-by-side evaluation of large language models. ArXiv, abs/2402.10524, 2024. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:267740498. · arXiv
- Douwe Kiela, Max Bartolo, Yixin Nie, Divyansh Kaushik, Atticus Geiger, Zhengxuan Wu, Bertie Vidgen, Grusha Prasad, Amanpreet Singh, Pratik Ringshia, Zhiyi Ma, Tristan Thrush, Sebastian Riedel, Zeerak Waseem, Pontus Stenetorp, Robin Jia, Mohit Bansal, Christopher Potts, and Adina Williams. Dynabench: Rethinking benchmarking in nlp. NAACL, 2021.
- Margaret Li, Jason Weston, and Stephen Roller. Acute-eval: Improved dialogue evaluation with optimized questions and multi-turn comparisons, 2019. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 1909.03087.
- Percy Liang, Rishi Bommasani, Tony Lee, Dimitris Tsipras, Dilara Soylu, Michihiro Yasunaga, Yian Zhang, Deepak Narayanan, Yuhuai Wu, Ananya Kumar, Benjamin Newman, Binhang Yuan, Bobby Yan, Ce Zhang, Christian Cosgrove, Christopher D. Manning, Christopher Ré, Diana Acosta-Navas, Drew A. Hudson, Eric Zelikman, Esin Durmus, Faisal Ladhak, Frieda Rong, Hongyu Ren, Huaxiu Yao, Jue Wang, Keshav Santhanam, Laurel Orr, Lucia Zheng, Mert Yuksekgonul, Mirac Suzgum, Nathan Kim, Neel Guha, Niladri Chatterji, Omar Khattab, Peter Henderson, Qian Huang, Ryan Chi, Sang Michael Xie, Shibani Santurkar, Surya Ganguli, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Thomas Icard, Tianyi Zhang, Vishrav Chaudhary, William Wang, Xuechen Li, Yifan Mai, Yuhui Zhang, and Yuta Koreeda. Holistic evaluation of language models. Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 08 2023.
- Chin-Yew Lin. ROUGE: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In Text Summarization Branches Out, pp. 74-81, Barcelona, Spain, July 2004. Association for Computational Linguistics. URL https://aclanthology.org/W04-1013.
- Tsung-Yi Lin, Michael Maire, Serge Belongie, James Hays, Pietro Perona, Deva Ramanan, C Lawrence Zitnick, and Piotr Dollár. Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. European conference on computer vision, pp. 740-755, 2014.
- Adian Liusie, Potsawee Manakul, and Mark J. F. Gales. Llm comparative assessment: Zero-shot nlg evaluation through pairwise comparisons using large language models. EACL, 2024.
- Shikib Mehri and Maxine Eskenazi. USR: An unsupervised and reference free evaluation metric for dialog generation. In Dan Jurafsky, Joyce Chai, Natalie Schluter, and Joel Tetreault (eds.), Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 681-707, Online, July 2020b. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2020. acl-main.64. URL https://aclanthology.org/2020.acl-main.64. OpenAI. Gpt-4 technical report, 2023. · DOI · Paper page
- Bo Pang, Erik Nijkamp, Wenjuan Han, Linqi Zhou, Yixian Liu, and Kewei Tu. Towards holistic and automatic evaluation of open-domain dialogue generation. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meet- ing of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 3619-3629, Online, 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics.
- Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 311-318, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, 2002. Association for Computational Linguistics.
- ChaeHun Park, Minseok Choi, Dohyun Lee, and Jaegul Choo. Paireval: Open-domain dialogue evaluation with pairwise comparison. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.01015, 2024. · arXiv
- Machel Reid, Nikolay Savinov, Denis Teplyashin, Dmitry Lepikhin, Timothy Lillicrap, Jean-baptiste Alayrac, Radu Soricut, Angeliki Lazaridou, Orhan Firat, Julian Schrittwieser, et al. Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of context. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.05530, 2024. · arXiv
- Thibault Sellam, Dipanjan Das, and Ankur P Parikh. Bleurt: Learning robust metrics for text generation. In Proceedings of ACL, 2020. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.04696. · arXiv
- Shaden Smith, Mostofa Patwary, Brandon Norick, Patrick LeGresley, Samyam Rajbhandari, Jared Casper, Zhun Liu, Shrimai Prabhumoye, George Zerveas, Vijay Korthikanti, Elton Zheng, Rewon Child, Reza Yazdani Aminabadi, Julie Bernauer, Xia Song, Mohammad Shoeybi, Yuxiong He, Michael Houston, Saurabh Tiwary, and Bryan Catanzaro. Using deepspeed and megatron to train megatron-turing NLG 530b, A large-scale generative language model. CoRR, abs/2201.11990, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.11990. · arXiv
- Alex Wang, Yada Pruksachatkun, Nikita Nangia, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel R. Bowman. SuperGLUE: A stickier benchmark for general-purpose language understanding systems. arXiv preprint 1905.00537, 2019a. · arXiv
- Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel R. Bowman. GLUE: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. Inter- national Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2019b.
- Lianmin Zheng, Wei-Lin Chiang, Ying Sheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Zhanghao Wu, Yonghao Zhuang, Zi Lin, Zhuohan Li, Dacheng Li, Eric P. Xing, Hao Zhang, Joseph E. Gonzalez, and Ion Stoica. Judging llm-as-a-judge with mt-bench and chatbot arena. NeurIPS, 2023.
- Ruiqi Zhong, Charlie Snell, Dan Klein, and Jacob Steinhardt. Describing differences between text distributions with natural language. In ICML, 2022.
- Ruiqi Zhong, Peter Zhang, Steve Li, Jinwoo Ahn, Dan Klein, and Jacob Steinhardt. Goal driven discovery of distributional differences via language descriptions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.14233, 2023. Llama-3-70b: Ahahaha! Oh, what a delightful pun! As a conversational AI, I'd say we're definitely on squeaking terms... or should I say, on paws-itive terms? Squeak squeak! GPT-4: If you were a mouse, we'd find a way to communicate effectively, whether that involves squeaking, gestures, or any form of interaction that works for both of us. I'm here to assist, regardless of your form! Use of Humor: Formality Level: Language and Tone: Llama-3-70b: Employs humor frequently to engage the reader. GPT-4: Maintains a serious tone without humorous elements. Llama-3-70b: Uses informal or conversational language. GPT-4: Uses formal language. Llama-3-70b: Enthusiastic, friendly tone. GPT-4: Professional, straightforward tone. Prompt: Is Iranian supreme leader irl Dr. Evil ? Llama-3-70b: What a delightful question! While Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei may be a controversial figure, I'm afraid he's not quite the same as Dr. Evil, the fictional villain from the Austin Powers movie series. Here are a few reasons why: 1. **No cat-stroking**: Unlike Dr. Evil, Khamenei hasn't been known to stroke a cat menacingly while plotting world domination. He's a religious and political leader, not a Bond villain. · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Lessons from the Trenches on Reproducible Evaluation of Language Models
Biderman, S., Schoelkopf, H., Sutawika, L., Gao, L., Tow, J., Abbasi, B., Aji, A. F., Ammanamanchi, P. S., Black, S., Clive, J., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.14782 · Cited by 9
Metadata
- Authors
- Dunlap, L., Mandal, K., Darrell, T., Steinhardt, J., & Gonzalez, J. E.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2410.12851
- OpenAlex
- W4403578729
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
- Keywords
- large language models, LLM-as-a-judge, model identity, user preference prediction, Llama-3-70B, GPT-4, summarization, mathematical reasoning, image captioning
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review