REVIEW 2 cited by
Efficient LLM Comparative Assessment: a Product of Experts Framework for Pairwise Comparisons
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
read the original abstract
LLM-as-a-judge approaches are a practical and effective way of assessing a range of text tasks. However, when using pairwise comparisons to rank a set of candidates, the computational cost scales quadratically with the number of candidates, which has practical limitations. This paper introduces a Product of Expert (PoE) framework for efficient LLM Comparative Assessment. Here individual comparisons are considered experts that provide information on a pair's score difference. The PoE framework combines the information from these experts to yield an expression that can be maximized with respect to the underlying set of candidates, and is highly flexible where any form of expert can be assumed. When Gaussian experts are used one can derive simple closed-form solutions for the optimal candidate ranking, and expressions for selecting which comparisons should be made to maximize the probability of this ranking. Our approach enables efficient comparative assessment, where by using only a small subset of the possible comparisons, one can generate score predictions that correlate well with human judgements. We evaluate the approach on multiple NLG tasks and demonstrate that our framework can yield considerable computational savings when performing pairwise comparative assessment. With many candidate texts, using as few as 2% of comparisons the PoE solution can achieve similar performance to when all comparisons are used.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
StatEval: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Large Language Models in Statistics
StatEval is a new 16,000-question statistics benchmark showing that even strong LLMs score below 60% on research-level statistical proof tasks.
-
Generalised Probabilistic Modelling and Improved Uncertainty Estimation in Comparative LLM-as-a-judge
A generalised Product-of-Experts framework with a new 'probability of reordering' selection metric that reduces the number of LLM comparisons needed for ranking by about 50%.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.