Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

LLMEval: A Preliminary Study on How to Evaluate 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

arxiv 2312.07398 v2 pith:4MAMWBUP submitted 2023-12-12 cs.AI cs.CL

classification cs.AIcs.CL
keywords evaluationwhatllmevalautomaticconductdatasetdifferentevaluate
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Recently, the evaluation of Large Language Models has emerged as a popular area of research. The three crucial questions for LLM evaluation are ``what, where, and how to evaluate''. However, the existing research mainly focuses on the first two questions, which are basically what tasks to give the LLM during testing and what kind of knowledge it should deal with. As for the third question, which is about what standards to use, the types of evaluators, how to score, and how to rank, there hasn't been much discussion. In this paper, we analyze evaluation methods by comparing various criteria with both manual and automatic evaluation, utilizing onsite, crowd-sourcing, public annotators and GPT-4, with different scoring methods and ranking systems. We propose a new dataset, LLMEval and conduct evaluations on 20 LLMs. A total of 2,186 individuals participated, leading to the generation of 243,337 manual annotations and 57,511 automatic evaluation results. We perform comparisons and analyses of different settings and conduct 10 conclusions that can provide some insights for evaluating LLM in the future. The dataset and the results are publicly available at https://github.com/llmeval .

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. From Reddit to Generative AI: Evaluating Large Language Models for Anxiety Support Fine-tuned on Social Media Data

    cs.HC 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Fine-tuning GPT-3.5 and Llama 2 on r/Anxiety posts improves readability but raises toxicity and bias while reducing empathy and reflection.

  2. An Empirical Study of Evaluating Long-form Question Answering

    cs.IR 2025-04 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    In long-form QA, LLM-based evaluators correlate with human judgments better than ROUGE or BERTScore, but they are biased by answer length, question type, self-reinforcement, and rare-word usage, and fine-grained promp...

  3. Evaluation and Benchmarking of LLM Agents: A Survey

    cs.LG 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A review that proposes a two-dimensional taxonomy for evaluating LLM agents and highlights enterprise-specific evaluation gaps.

Pith tools