Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Evaluating the Consistency of LLM Evaluators

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 2412.00543 v1 pith:C7CFWE2B submitted 2024-11-30 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords evaluatorsconsistencymodelsproprietaryalonganalysisannotatorsaspects
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have shown potential as general evaluators along with the evident benefits of speed and cost. While their correlation against human annotators has been widely studied, consistency as evaluators is still understudied, raising concerns about the reliability of LLM evaluators. In this paper, we conduct extensive studies on the two aspects of consistency in LLM evaluations, Self-Consistency (SC) and Inter-scale Consistency (IC), on different scoring scales and criterion granularity with open-source and proprietary models. Our comprehensive analysis demonstrates that strong proprietary models are not necessarily consistent evaluators, highlighting the importance of considering consistency in assessing the capability of LLM evaluators.

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.

  1. The Non-Determinism of Small LLMs: Evidence of Low Answer Consistency in Repetition Trials of Standard Multiple-Choice Benchmarks

    cs.CL 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Small open-source LLMs give inconsistent answers on 20% to 50% of multiple-choice questions even at low temperature, while 50B-80B models are consistent on over 90% of questions.

Pith tools