REVIEW 15 cited by
Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human 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
Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations?
read the original abstract
Human evaluation is indispensable and inevitable for assessing the quality of texts generated by machine learning models or written by humans. However, human evaluation is very difficult to reproduce and its quality is notoriously unstable, hindering fair comparisons among different natural language processing (NLP) models and algorithms. Recently, large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional performance on unseen tasks when only the task instructions are provided. In this paper, we explore if such an ability of the LLMs can be used as an alternative to human evaluation. We present the LLMs with the exact same instructions, samples to be evaluated, and questions used to conduct human evaluation, and then ask the LLMs to generate responses to those questions; we dub this LLM evaluation. We use human evaluation and LLM evaluation to evaluate the texts in two NLP tasks: open-ended story generation and adversarial attacks. We show that the result of LLM evaluation is consistent with the results obtained by expert human evaluation: the texts rated higher by human experts are also rated higher by the LLMs. We also find that the results of LLM evaluation are stable over different formatting of the task instructions and the sampling algorithm used to generate the answer. We are the first to show the potential of using LLMs to assess the quality of texts and discuss the limitations and ethical considerations of LLM evaluation.
Forward citations
Cited by 15 Pith papers
-
Iterating Toward Better Search: A Two-Agent Simulation Framework for Evaluating Agentic Search Architectures in E-Commerce
A modular two-agent simulation framework enables controlled comparison of conversational e-commerce responders, showing rolling-window memory outperforms intent extraction and targeted fixes reduce failures by 62%.
-
Benchmark Everything Everywhere All at Once
Benchmark Agent is an autonomous agentic system that constructs benchmarks for LLMs and MLLMs via query analysis, subtask design, annotation and quality control, yielding 15 benchmarks with minimal human input.
-
The Provenance Gap in Clinical AI: Evidence-Traceable Temporal Knowledge Graphs for Rare Disease Reasoning
HEG-TKG grounds LLM clinical reasoning in hierarchical evidence-based temporal knowledge graphs from 4,512 PubMed records, delivering 100% citation verifiability and error detectability where standard RAG and unprompt...
-
The Falcon Series of Open Language Models
Falcon-180B is a 180B-parameter open decoder-only model trained on 3.5 trillion tokens that approaches PaLM-2-Large performance at lower cost and is released with dataset extracts.
-
DoLa: Decoding by Contrasting Layers Improves Factuality in Large Language Models
DoLa reduces hallucinations in LLMs by contrasting logits from later versus earlier layers during decoding, improving truthfulness on TruthfulQA by 12-17 absolute points without fine-tuning or retrieval.
-
Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena
GPT-4 as an LLM judge achieves over 80% agreement with human preferences on MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena, matching human agreement levels and providing a scalable evaluation method.
-
Game Theory Driven Multi-Agent Framework Mitigates Language Model Hallucination
A game-framed multi-agent system synthesizes large chemistry CoT/QA corpora and trains OmniChem-7B to near GPT-4o-mini performance with a large reported drop in hallucinations.
-
StanceNakba Shared Task: Actor and Topic-Aware Stance Detection in Public Discourse
Introduces StanceNakba 2026 shared task and 2,606-post dataset for Pro-Palestine/Pro-Israel/Neutral stance in English posts and Favor/Against/Neither stance in Arabic posts on normalization and refugees, with top Macr...
-
Margin-Adaptive Confidence Ranking for Reliable LLM Judgement
Introduces a margin-adaptive confidence ranking method that learns an estimator from simulated diversity and derives margin-dependent generalization bounds for use in fixed-sequence testing of LLM-human agreement.
-
Agent-Agnostic Evaluation of SQL Accuracy in Production Text-to-SQL Systems
STEF is a schema-agnostic evaluation framework that scores SQL generation accuracy from natural language inputs using semantic feature alignment and a composite metric.
-
Instruction-Following Evaluation for Large Language Models
IFEval is a new benchmark of 25 verifiable instruction types and ~500 prompts for objective, reproducible evaluation of LLMs' instruction-following abilities.
-
A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questions
The paper surveys hallucination in LLMs with an innovative taxonomy, factors, detection methods, benchmarks, mitigation strategies, and open research directions.
-
Margin-Adaptive Confidence Ranking for Reliable LLM Judgement
Develops a margin-adaptive learned confidence estimator for LLMs with generalization guarantees to improve agreement rates with human judgments over heuristic baselines.
-
Quantifying the Statistical Effect of Rubric Modifications on Human-Autorater Agreement
Specific rubric edits (examples, context, bias reduction) raise human-LLM rater agreement in essay scoring and instruction following while complexity and conservative aggregation lower it.
-
Data-Centric Foundation Models in Computational Healthcare: A Survey
The paper surveys data-centric strategies for foundation models in computational healthcare and supplies a curated list of related models and datasets.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.