REVIEW 6 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
PRD: Peer Rank and Discussion Improve Large Language Model based Evaluations
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 6 Pith papers
-
AgentReview: Exploring Peer Review Dynamics with LLM Agents
AgentReview is the first LLM-based simulation framework for peer review that quantifies a 37.1% decision variation attributable to reviewer biases.
-
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.
-
Replacing Judges with Juries: Evaluating LLM Generations with a Panel of Diverse Models
A panel of smaller diverse LLMs outperforms a single large model as an evaluator of generations, showing less intra-model bias and over 7x lower cost.
-
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%.
-
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.
-
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.