Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

The Battle of LLMs: A Comparative Study in Conversational QA Tasks

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 2405.18344 v1 pith:ZJWM4OY5 submitted 2024-05-28 cs.CL cs.AI

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

Large language models have gained considerable interest for their impressive performance on various tasks. Within this domain, ChatGPT and GPT-4, developed by OpenAI, and the Gemini, developed by Google, have emerged as particularly popular among early adopters. Additionally, Mixtral by Mistral AI and Claude by Anthropic are newly released, further expanding the landscape of advanced language models. These models are viewed as disruptive technologies with applications spanning customer service, education, healthcare, and finance. More recently, Mistral has entered the scene, captivating users with its unique ability to generate creative content. Understanding the perspectives of these users is crucial, as they can offer valuable insights into the potential strengths, weaknesses, and overall success or failure of these technologies in various domains. This research delves into the responses generated by ChatGPT, GPT-4, Gemini, Mixtral and Claude across different Conversational QA corpora. Evaluation scores were meticulously computed and subsequently compared to ascertain the overall performance of these models. Our study pinpointed instances where these models provided inaccurate answers to questions, offering insights into potential areas where they might be susceptible to errors. In essence, this research provides a comprehensive comparison and evaluation of these state of-the-art language models, shedding light on their capabilities while also highlighting potential areas for improvement

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Assessing the Impact of the Quality of Textual Data on Feature Representation and Machine Learning Models

    cs.CL 2025-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Token-level clinical text errors below 10% barely change classifier AUC in this study, but error rates at or above 10% cause visible drops, so data cleaning is mainly justified for heavily noisy datasets.

  2. A Survey of the State-of-the-Art in Conversational Question Answering Systems

    cs.CL 2025-09 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

    A review that categorizes ConvQA components, techniques, models, and datasets, with no new experimental result.

Pith tools