pith. sign in

arxiv: 2403.08010 · v3 · pith:IU5Y3MA7new · submitted 2024-03-12 · 💻 cs.CL

Debatrix: Multi-dimensional Debate Judge with Iterative Chronological Analysis Based on LLM

classification 💻 cs.CL
keywords debatedebatrixanalysisevaluationmulti-dimensionalbenchmarkchronologicaliterative
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

How can we construct an automated debate judge to evaluate an extensive, vibrant, multi-turn debate? This task is challenging, as judging a debate involves grappling with lengthy texts, intricate argument relationships, and multi-dimensional assessments. At the same time, current research mainly focuses on short dialogues, rarely touching upon the evaluation of an entire debate. In this paper, by leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs), we propose Debatrix, which makes the analysis and assessment of multi-turn debates more aligned with majority preferences. Specifically, Debatrix features a vertical, iterative chronological analysis and a horizontal, multi-dimensional evaluation collaboration. To align with real-world debate scenarios, we introduced the PanelBench benchmark, comparing our system's performance to actual debate outcomes. The findings indicate a notable enhancement over directly using LLMs for debate evaluation. Source code and benchmark data are available online at https://github.com/ljcleo/debatrix .

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. A Survey of Scaling in Large Language Model Reasoning

    cs.AI 2025-04 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    A survey categorizing scaling in LLM reasoning across input size, steps, rounds, training, and future directions, noting that scaling can negatively affect performance.

  2. LLMs-as-Judges: A Comprehensive Survey on LLM-based Evaluation Methods

    cs.CL 2024-12 accept novelty 3.0

    A survey that organizes LLMs-as-judges research into functionality, methodology, applications, meta-evaluation, and limitations.