Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

CritiqueLLM: Towards an Informative Critique Generation Model for Evaluation of Large Language Model Generation

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2311.18702 v2 pith:LG455YP7 submitted 2023-11-30 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords critiquesevaluationgeneratedgenerationgradingmodelpointwisedata
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Since the natural language processing (NLP) community started to make large language models (LLMs) act as a critic to evaluate the quality of generated texts, most of the existing works train a critique generation model on the evaluation data labeled by GPT-4's direct prompting. We observe that these models lack the ability to generate informative critiques in both pointwise grading and pairwise comparison especially without references. As a result, their generated critiques cannot provide fine-grained distinguishability on generated texts, causing unsatisfactory evaluation performance. In this paper, we propose a simple yet effective method called Eval-Instruct, which can first acquire pointwise grading critiques with pseudo references and then revise these critiques via multi-path prompting to obtain informative evaluation data in different tasks and settings, including pointwise grading and pairwise comparison with / without references. After fine-tuning on these data, the resulting model CritiqueLLM is empirically shown to outperform ChatGPT and all the open-source baselines and even achieve comparable evaluation performance to GPT-4 in system-level correlations of pointwise grading. We also demonstrate that our generated critiques can act as scalable feedback to further improve the generation quality of strong LLMs like ChatGPT.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. HumanAgencyBench: Scalable Evaluation of Human Agency Support in AI Assistants

    cs.CY 2025-09 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A new benchmark finds low to moderate human agency support in 20 LLM assistants across six dimensions.

  2. R4ec: A Reasoning, Reflection, and Refinement Framework for Recommendation Systems

    cs.IR 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    R4ec trains a small reflection model to critique and refine LLM-generated user and item knowledge, which then improves downstream recommendation accuracy.

  3. A Survey of Automatic Evaluation Methods on Text, Visual and Speech Generations

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A unified taxonomy and comparative meta-evaluation of automatic evaluation methods across text, vision, and speech generation, concluding that LLM-based evaluators dominate current practice.

  4. Generative RLHF-V: Learning Principles from Multi-modal Human Preference

    cs.AI 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A reinforcement-learned multimodal judge with grouped pairwise scoring improves vision-language model alignment on seven benchmarks.

Pith tools