REVIEW 10 cited by
LLM-Eval: Unified Multi-Dimensional Automatic Evaluation for Open-Domain Conversations with 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
LLM-Eval: Unified Multi-Dimensional Automatic Evaluation for Open-Domain Conversations with Large Language Models
read the original abstract
We propose LLM-Eval, a unified multi-dimensional automatic evaluation method for open-domain conversations with large language models (LLMs). Existing evaluation methods often rely on human annotations, ground-truth responses, or multiple LLM prompts, which can be expensive and time-consuming. To address these issues, we design a single prompt-based evaluation method that leverages a unified evaluation schema to cover multiple dimensions of conversation quality in a single model call. We extensively evaluate the performance of LLM-Eval on various benchmark datasets, demonstrating its effectiveness, efficiency, and adaptability compared to state-of-the-art evaluation methods. Our analysis also highlights the importance of choosing suitable LLMs and decoding strategies for accurate evaluation results. LLM-Eval offers a versatile and robust solution for evaluating open-domain conversation systems, streamlining the evaluation process and providing consistent performance across diverse scenarios.
Forward citations
Cited by 10 Pith papers
-
PR-CAD: Progressive Refinement for Unified Controllable and Faithful Text-to-CAD Generation with Large Language Models
PR-CAD unifies text-to-CAD generation and editing via progressive refinement with LLMs, a new interaction dataset, and RL-enhanced reasoning to achieve better controllability and faithfulness.
-
The Prompt Report: A Systematic Survey of Prompt Engineering Techniques
This systematic survey organizes prompt engineering into a taxonomy of 58 LLM techniques and 40 others, supplies a shared vocabulary, and offers guidelines for state-of-the-art models.
-
OmniPresent: Generating Coherent Presentation Suites from Scientific Papers
A multi-agent HTML pipeline with shared knowledge and cross-artifact verify-and-repair generates coherent poster/slides/video/page suites from papers and beats specialized baselines on OmniPreBench.
-
Poller: Are LLMs Suitable for Evaluating the Poetry Understanding Task?
Poller reduces LLM-human disagreement in evaluating Chinese poetry understanding by having LLMs role-play as authors, with reported error reductions of 94.55% and 89.53% on rhetorical techniques and defamiliarization.
-
Agreement Metrics for LLM-as-Judge Evaluation: What to Report and Why
For binary LLM judge validation, Pearson's r, Spearman's ρ, Kendall's τ_b, phi, and Matthews correlation all equal a single number on non-degenerate data, Cohen's κ supplies the extra signal on label-rate drift, and a...
-
Data Selection for Multi-turn Dialogue Instruction Tuning
MDS selects better multi-turn dialogues for instruction tuning by combining bin-wise global coverage with local entity-topic and format consistency scoring, outperforming prior selectors on benchmarks.
-
OutSafe-Bench: A Benchmark for Multimodal Offensive Content Detection in Large Language Models
OutSafe-Bench supplies the first large-scale four-modality safety dataset and evaluation framework that exposes persistent unsafe outputs in nine leading multimodal LLMs.
-
Agreement Metrics for LLM-as-Judge Evaluation: What to Report and Why
On binary verdicts, Pearson, Spearman, Kendall's tau-b, phi, and the Matthews correlation are a single statistic, so most multi-metric agreement reports repeat one number under different names.
-
The Rise and Potential of Large Language Model Based Agents: A Survey
The paper surveys the origins, frameworks, applications, and open challenges of AI agents built on large language models.
-
LLMs-as-Judges: A Comprehensive Survey on LLM-based Evaluation Methods
A survey that organizes LLMs-as-judges research into functionality, methodology, applications, meta-evaluation, and limitations.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.