Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

LLM Comparator: Visual Analytics for Side-by-Side Evaluation of Large Language Models

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 2402.10524 v1 pith:EJOAOPE6 submitted 2024-02-16 cs.HC cs.AIcs.CLcs.LG

classification cs.HCcs.AIcs.CLcs.LG
keywords evaluationmodelstoollargeside-by-sideanalyticsanalyzingapproach
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Automatic side-by-side evaluation has emerged as a promising approach to evaluating the quality of responses from large language models (LLMs). However, analyzing the results from this evaluation approach raises scalability and interpretability challenges. In this paper, we present LLM Comparator, a novel visual analytics tool for interactively analyzing results from automatic side-by-side evaluation. The tool supports interactive workflows for users to understand when and why a model performs better or worse than a baseline model, and how the responses from two models are qualitatively different. We iteratively designed and developed the tool by closely working with researchers and engineers at a large technology company. This paper details the user challenges we identified, the design and development of the tool, and an observational study with participants who regularly evaluate their models.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Who Decides How Knowing Becomes Doing? Redistributing Authority in Human-AI Music Co-Creation

    cs.HC 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Editing an AI's reasoning steps instead of only typing prompts made 180 musicians report more contestability, agency, and protection of non-mainstream styles, though the survey evidence lacks statistical analysis.

Pith tools