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
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.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
The Non-Determinism of Small LLMs: Evidence of Low Answer Consistency in Repetition Trials of Standard Multiple-Choice Benchmarks
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.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.