Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Eliciting Informative Text Evaluations 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

arxiv 2405.15077 v4 pith:WFOGKN7D submitted 2024-05-23 cs.CL cs.AIcs.GT

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.GT
keywords mechanismspeerpredictionreviewsdatasetfeedbacklargegenerative
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Peer prediction mechanisms motivate high-quality feedback with provable guarantees. However, current methods only apply to rather simple reports, like multiple-choice or scalar numbers. We aim to broaden these techniques to the larger domain of text-based reports, drawing on the recent developments in large language models. This vastly increases the applicability of peer prediction mechanisms as textual feedback is the norm in a large variety of feedback channels: peer reviews, e-commerce customer reviews, and comments on social media. We introduce two mechanisms, the Generative Peer Prediction Mechanism (GPPM) and the Generative Synopsis Peer Prediction Mechanism (GSPPM). These mechanisms utilize LLMs as predictors, mapping from one agent's report to a prediction of her peer's report. Theoretically, we show that when the LLM prediction is sufficiently accurate, our mechanisms can incentivize high effort and truth-telling as an (approximate) Bayesian Nash equilibrium. Empirically, we confirm the efficacy of our mechanisms through experiments conducted on two real datasets: the Yelp review dataset and the ICLR OpenReview dataset. We highlight the results that on the ICLR dataset, our mechanisms can differentiate three quality levels -- human-written reviews, GPT-4-generated reviews, and GPT-3.5-generated reviews in terms of expected scores. Additionally, GSPPM penalizes LLM-generated reviews more effectively than GPPM.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Scoring Rules! Statistical and Strategic Alignment for Text Evaluation Metrics

    cs.AI 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Statistical alignment with human ratings does not imply strategic alignment: LLM-as-a-Judge is highly correlated but easily manipulated, while a new statement-level mutual-information metric is robust to manipulation.

Pith tools