REVIEW 5 cited by
PRD: Peer Rank and Discussion Improve Large Language Model based Evaluations
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
read the original abstract
Nowadays, the quality of responses generated by different modern large language models (LLMs) is hard to evaluate and compare automatically. Recent studies suggest and predominantly use LLMs for reference-free evaluation of open-ended question answering. More specifically, they use the recognized "strongest" LLM as the evaluator, which conducts pairwise comparisons of candidate models' answers and provides a ranking score. However, this intuitive method has multiple problems, such as bringing in self-enhancement (favoring its own answers) and positional bias. We draw insights and lessons from the educational domain (Cho & MacArthur, 2011; Walsh, 2014) to improve LLM-based evaluations. Specifically, we propose (1) the peer rank (PR) algorithm that takes into account each peer LLM's pairwise preferences of all answer pairs, and outputs a final ranking of models; and (2) peer discussion (PD), where we prompt two LLMs to discuss and try to reach a mutual agreement on the preferences of two answers. We conduct experiments on two benchmark datasets. We find that our approaches achieve higher accuracy and align better with human judgments. Interestingly, PR can induce a relatively accurate self-ranking of models under the anonymous setting, where each model's name is unrevealed. Our work provides space to explore evaluating models that are hard to compare for humans.
Forward citations
Cited by 5 Pith papers
-
Training with (Swap) Regret Loss in a Single-Layer Self-Attention Model: A Case Study on the Probability Simplex
Training single-layer attention with squared regret loss has stationary points that implement smoothed fictitious play (external regret) and, via a new swap-regret loss, the Blum–Mansour no-swap-regret algorithm.
-
EvalLoop: A Methodology for Evaluation-Driven Iterative Improvement of Business AI Systems
EvalLoop improves business LLM systems by grouping metrics into dimensions, classifying failure modes, and iterating one system variable at a time, raising a sales briefing model from 82.6% to 94.6%.
-
Chain-of-Models: Cross-Model Auditing for Bias-Robust LLM Judges
Per-bias selection of a cross-family LLM auditor lifts biased-judgment accuracy from 0.805/0.824 baselines to 0.884.
-
How to Train a Leader: Hierarchical Reasoning in Multi-Agent LLMs
A leader LLM trained with a GRPO variant that conditions on frozen agent responses improves both collaborative and zero-shot accuracy on BBH, MATH, and MMLU.
-
A Survey of Automatic Evaluation Methods on Text, Visual and Speech Generations
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.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.