Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 93 references

Multiple LLMs comparing outputs pairwise and ranked by Elo can match expert judgments of free-form text quality without reference answers.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-31 12:18 UTC pith:DZCSQYD4

load-bearing objection Clean packaging of multi-LLM pairwise + Elo with tunable thresholds, but the headline correlations rest on n≈20 and never clear p<0.05. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.28282 v1 pith:DZCSQYD4 submitted 2026-07-30 cs.CL cs.LG

(Towards) Scalable Reliable Automated Evaluation with Large Language Models

Bertil Braun , Martin Forell This is my paper
classification cs.CL cs.LG
keywords LLM-as-a-judgepairwise comparisonElo ratingreference-free evaluationcompetency profilesagreement thresholdautomated rankingmulti-model aggregation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Human evaluation of free-form LLM outputs is slow and inconsistent, while classic automatic metrics need fixed references that many tasks lack. This paper shows that several LLMs can instead judge pairs of candidate outputs against task-specific criteria, then feed those wins and losses into an Elo rating system to produce a stable ranking. Agreement thresholds let the user trade coverage for certainty, from full unanimity down to simple majority or even no threshold. On the concrete task of ranking competency profiles extracted from scientific abstracts, the automatic rankings reach Spearman correlation 0.83 with twenty domain experts. The result is a reusable, reference-free evaluation layer that can rank LLM-generated text at scale while still tracking expert preference.

Core claim

When multiple contemporary LLMs perform bidirectional pairwise comparisons of free-text items (here, competency profiles) and the outcomes are aggregated by Elo rating under a simple-majority or no-threshold rule, the resulting rankings correlate strongly with rankings produced by domain experts (average Spearman ρ ≈ 0.83, Kendall τ ≈ 0.78). Higher unanimity thresholds produce more draws and weaker correlations; using several models together is more robust than any single model alone.

What carries the argument

Multi-LLM pairwise comparison pipeline whose win/loss/draw outcomes update an Elo rating; adjustable agreement thresholds decide when a comparison counts as decisive rather than a draw.

Load-bearing premise

The relative preferences expressed by the chosen panel of LLMs under one fixed prompt template are an unbiased, roughly transitive proxy for what human experts mean by “relevance and fidelity.”

What would settle it

Re-run the identical protocol on a fresh set of experts and abstracts from a different scientific domain; if Spearman correlation with the new expert rankings falls below 0.5 while the same multi-LLM Elo pipeline is used, the central claim fails.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Any free-text generation task that currently needs human ranking can substitute the multi-LLM Elo layer once a small calibration set of expert judgments is available.
  • Hyper-parameter sweeps, prompt variants, or model selection can be performed entirely automatically by treating each configuration as an “item” in the Elo tournament.
  • Practitioners can report Elo-score gaps (e.g., Δ > 150) as an interpretable measure of how much better one output is expected to be than another.
  • Lowering the agreement threshold from 1.0 to 0.5 or removing it entirely recovers more signal and improves correlation with experts when several LLMs are available.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same pipeline could serve as a cheap continuous-integration check for LLM-based applications, flagging regressions whenever a new model version drops in Elo against a frozen reference set.
  • Because Elo differences map directly to expected win probabilities, the method supplies a natural uncertainty estimate that could be used to decide when human review is still required.
  • If the O(n²) comparison cost is later reduced by adaptive tournament designs that preserve approximate ranking fidelity, the approach becomes practical for hundreds of candidates rather than dozens.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a reference-free evaluation framework for free-form LLM outputs that performs bidirectional pairwise comparisons with a panel of LLMs, aggregates judgments via an Elo rating system (with optional agreement thresholds from unanimity to majority or no-threshold), and produces ranked lists. It is demonstrated on the task of ranking competency profiles (domain + 5–8 competencies) generated from scientific abstracts; multi-LLM Elo rankings are compared to rankings supplied by 20 domain experts via Spearman ρ and Kendall τ. The strongest reported result (Table 1, threshold 0.5) is average ρ ≈ 0.83 ± 0.19 and τ ≈ 0.78 ± 0.21. The authors conclude that the pipeline approximates expert judgment sufficiently well to reduce human evaluation effort and is domain-agnostic.

Significance. If the claimed correlations are reliable and generalizable, the work would supply a practical, tunable evaluation layer for open-ended generation tasks that lack gold references—an acknowledged gap relative to BLEU/ROUGE/BERTScore and single-model LLM-as-judge baselines. The explicit ablation of thresholds versus no-threshold, the multi- versus single-LLM comparison, the bidirectional design, and the adherence to Boubdir et al.’s permutation guidelines are concrete engineering contributions. The competency-profile use case is a realistic, structured free-text task. However, the empirical foundation is a single small-n, single-domain study; without stronger statistical support or broader validation the practical significance remains provisional.

major comments (3)
  1. [Table 1, §6.3.1] Table 1 (threshold 0.5 / No-T rows): the headline Spearman ρ = 0.83 ± 0.19 and Kendall τ = 0.78 ± 0.21 are accompanied by p-values 0.114 / 0.142 that do not reach conventional significance. With only ~20 expert ranking lists, large standard deviations, and non-independent observations (experts rank profiles of their own abstracts), the central claim that the rankings “correlate well with expert judgments” is statistically under-powered and cannot yet be treated as validation. Either a larger, independent expert cohort or a clear power analysis / bootstrap confidence-interval treatment is required before the approximation claim can be sustained.
  2. [§6.1, §8] §6.1 and §8 acknowledge the limited expert pool yet still present the point estimates as evidence that the method “significantly reduc[es] the need for extensive human intervention.” Because the experts are self-selected and evaluate profiles derived from their own work, self-ranking bias is a plausible confounder that is neither measured nor controlled. A minimal additional experiment—e.g., a subset of experts ranking profiles from abstracts outside their own set, or an inter-expert agreement baseline—would be needed to separate genuine proxy quality from this artifact.
  3. [§4.3–4.4, §5.2, Tables 1–2] The free parameters (Elo K, exact judge panel, generation temperature/completions, prompt template) are fixed without sensitivity analysis beyond the threshold ablation. Table 2 shows that single-LLM behavior already diverges from the multi-LLM case; without reporting how rank order or correlation changes under modest panel or K perturbations, it is unclear whether the reported correlations are robust properties of the framework or artifacts of the particular five-model ensemble chosen in §5.2.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4, Figure 1] Figure 1 and the surrounding text in §4 describe three stages but never quantify wall-clock cost or API-call volume for the O(n² × N_LLM) comparisons; a short complexity/cost paragraph (even if only order-of-magnitude) would help readers assess practicality.
  2. [§2.2, §5] The Elo expected-score formula in §2.2 is standard, yet the concrete K value used in the experiments is never stated; please add it for reproducibility.
  3. [§4.2, Appendix A.3] Appendix A.3 prompt is useful, but the RAG retrieval mechanism (how examples are selected and how many) is described only at a high level in §4.2; a one-sentence clarification would remove ambiguity.
  4. [passim] Typos / style: “LLMs” sometimes appears with a leading space (“ LLMs”); “No T.” abbreviation is introduced without expansion in the table caption; arXiv identifier formatting is inconsistent with the rest of the references.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: external expert rankings are independent of the LLM-Elo pipeline; correlations are post-hoc measurements, not constructions.

full rationale

The paper’s central claim is empirical: multi-LLM bidirectional pairwise judgments aggregated by Elo (with optional agreement thresholds) produce rankings that correlate with independently collected human expert rankings of the same competency profiles (Table 1, Spearman ρ ≈ 0.83 at threshold 0.5). Elo updates, expected-score formula, and threshold rules are the classical definitions (Section 2.2) and are not redefined in terms of the expert labels. Profile generation (llama-3.1-70B) and judging (separate panel) are distinct stages; the evaluation target is external human rankings obtained via a web interface, not a quantity fitted from or defined by the LLM judgments. No parameter is fit to expert data and then re-presented as a prediction; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported via self-citation to force the result; the method is simply applied and then compared. Minor model-family overlap between generator and judges does not create a definitional loop because agreement is measured against humans. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against an external benchmark and exhibits none of the six circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on a small set of modeling and statistical choices rather than on new physical or mathematical entities. The load-bearing assumptions are that multi-LLM majority votes track expert quality, that Elo with the chosen K and permutation averaging yields stable ranks, and that the 20-expert self-ranking sample is representative enough to support the correlation claim.

free parameters (4)
  • Elo K-factor
    Magnitude of rating updates after each comparison; paper cites typical range 4–32 but does not report the exact value used for the tables.
  • Agreement threshold τ ∈ {1.0, 0.9, 0.75, 0.5, No-T} = 0.5 gives peak reported ρ
    User-chosen cutoff that converts a multi-LLM vote vector into win/loss/draw; directly controls the reported correlations.
  • Generation temperature and number of completions = temp=0.5, n=6
    llama-3.1-70B profile generation uses temperature 0.5 and 6 completions per abstract set; these choices affect item diversity entering the tournament.
  • Judge-model panel composition = 5 models listed in Table 3
    Which and how many LLMs cast votes changes both bias cancellation and cost; panel is hand-selected.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Relative pairwise preferences of current LLMs under a fixed CoT+RAG prompt are sufficiently aligned with human expert notions of profile quality that majority aggregation yields useful rankings.
    Stated as the core premise of §4 and tested only in the single study of §6; if false the correlation claim collapses.
  • domain assumption Elo ratings computed from possibly non-transitive, noisy LLM comparisons converge to a stable total order that is meaningful for quality.
    Invoked in §4.4; paper follows Boubdir et al. permutation advice but does not prove transitivity or uniqueness.
  • domain assumption Bidirectional presentation plus multi-model voting adequately cancels positional, verbosity and stylistic biases for the competency-profile task.
    Claimed in §4.2; supporting evidence is indirect (improved correlation vs single-model).
  • standard math Standard Elo expected-score formula and Spearman/Kendall rank correlations are appropriate summary statistics.
    Classical definitions used without modification (§2.2–2.3).
invented entities (1)
  • Competency profile (structured domain + 5–8 competencies) no independent evidence
    purpose: Concrete free-text item type used to demonstrate the evaluation pipeline.
    Defined operationally in §5.1; not a new theoretical object, merely a task-specific output schema. No independent existence claimed beyond the experiments.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-daily-grok45 · 21778 in / 3464 out tokens · 77459 ms · 2026-07-31T12:18:20.229679+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Evaluating the quality and relevance of textual outputs from Large Language Models (LLMs) remains challenging and resource-intensive. Existing automated metrics often fail to capture the complexity and variability inherent in LLM-generated outputs. Moreover, these metrics typically rely on explicit reference standards, limiting their use mostly to domains with objective benchmarks. This work introduces a novel evaluation framework designed to approximate expert-level assessments of LLM-generated content. The proposed method employs pairwise comparisons of outputs by multiple LLMs, reducing biases from individual models. An Elo rating system is used to generate stable and interpretable rankings. Adjustable agreement thresholds, from full unanimity to majority voting, allow flexible control over evaluation confidence and coverage. The method's effectiveness is demonstrated through evaluating competency profiles extracted from scientific abstracts. Preliminary results show that automatically derived rankings correlate well with expert judgments, significantly reducing the need for extensive human intervention. By offering a scalable, consistent, and domain-agnostic evaluation layer, the framework supports more efficient and reliable quality assessments of LLM outputs across diverse applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28282 by Bertil Braun, Martin Forell.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Pipeline Overview: A three-stage methodol [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overview of the message prompt used in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Otto, Wolfgang and Zielinski, Andrea and Dimitrov, Dimitar and others , language =

  2. [2]

    Labs, Colin Wilson-Lotus , url =

  3. [3]

    Kendall, M. G. , year = 1938, journal =. A. doi:10.2307/2332226 , url =

    doi:10.2307/2332226 1938

  4. [4]

    The rating of chessplayers, past and present , author =

  5. [5]

    Competence in experts:

    Shanteau, James , year = 1992, month = nov, journal =. Competence in experts:. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(92)90064-E , url =

    work page doi:10.1016/0749-5978(92)90064-e 1992

  6. [6]

    Hochreiter, Sepp and Schmidhuber, J\". Long. Neural Computation , volume = 9, number = 8, pages =. doi:10.1162/neco.1997.9.8.1735 , url =

    doi:10.1162/neco.1997.9.8.1735 1997

  7. [7]

    Connectionist

    Finding structure in time , author =. Connectionist

  8. [8]

    Papineni, Kishore and Roukos, Salim and Ward, Todd and others , year = 2002, month = jul, booktitle =. Bleu: a. doi:10.3115/1073083.1073135 , url =

    arXiv 2002

  9. [9]

    Lin, Chin-Yew , year = 2004, month = jul, booktitle =

    2004

  10. [10]

    IJWBC , volume = 1, pages =

    Competence mining for virtual scientific community creation , author =. IJWBC , volume = 1, pages =

  11. [11]

    Rosen-Zvi, Michal and Griffiths, Thomas and Steyvers, Mark and others , year = 2004, month = jan, pages =. The

    2004

  12. [12]

    Pearson versus

    Bolboaca, Sorana and J\". Pearson versus

  13. [13]

    Coates, Graham and Thompson, Clare and de Leon, Richard , year = 2007, journal =. A

    2007

  14. [14]

    regression in machine translation evaluation , author =

    Ranking vs. regression in machine translation evaluation , author =

  15. [15]

    Automatic

    Rose, Stuart and Engel, Dave and Cramer, Nick and others , year = 2010, month = mar, booktitle =. Automatic

    2010

  16. [16]

    , year = 2010, publisher =

    Zar, Jerrold H. , year = 2010, publisher =. Biostatistical

    2010

  17. [17]

    International Journal of Epidemiology , volume = 39, number = 5, pages =

    The proof and measurement of association between two things , author =. International Journal of Epidemiology , volume = 39, number = 5, pages =. doi:10.1093/ije/dyq191 , url =

    doi:10.1093/ije/dyq191

  18. [18]

    Findings of the 2011

    Callison-Burch, Chris and Koehn, Philipp and Monz, Christof and others , year = 2011, month = jul, booktitle =. Findings of the 2011

    2011

  19. [19]

    Employee competences in manufacturing companies –

    Meyer, Gerrit and Br\". Employee competences in manufacturing companies –. The Journal of Management Development , volume = 34, doi =

  20. [20]

    Collins, Ed and Augenstein, Isabelle and Riedel, Sebastian , year = 2017, month = jun, publisher =. A. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1706.03946 , url =

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1706.03946 2017

  21. [21]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.1810.04805 , url =

    Devlin, Jacob and Chang, Ming-Wei and Lee, Kenton and others , year = 2019, month = may, publisher =. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1810.04805 , url =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1810.04805 2019

  22. [22]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.1904.09675 , url =

    Zhang, Tianyi and Kishore, Varsha and Wu, Felix and others , year = 2020, month = feb, publisher =. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1904.09675 , url =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1904.09675 2020

  23. [23]

    and Stiennon, Nisan and Wu, Jeffrey and others , year = 2020, month = jan, publisher =

    Ziegler, Daniel M. and Stiennon, Nisan and Wu, Jeffrey and others , year = 2020, month = jan, publisher =. Fine-. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1909.08593 , url =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1909.08593 2020

  24. [24]

    and Mann, Benjamin and Ryder, Nick and others , year = 2020, month = jul, publisher =

    Brown, Tom B. and Mann, Benjamin and Ryder, Nick and others , year = 2020, month = jul, publisher =. Language. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2005.14165 , url =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.14165 2020

  25. [25]

    and Wallace, Eric and Feng, Shi and others , year = 2021, month = jun, publisher =

    Zhao, Tony Z. and Wallace, Eric and Feng, Shi and others , year = 2021, month = jun, publisher =. Calibrate. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2102.09690 , url =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2102.09690 2021

  26. [26]

    Experts,

    Freitag, Markus and Foster, George and Grangier, David and others , year = 2021, month = dec, journal =. Experts,. doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00437 , url =

    doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00437 2021

  27. [27]

    Retrieval-

    Lewis, Patrick and Perez, Ethan and Piktus, Aleksandra and others , year = 2021, month = apr, publisher =. Retrieval-. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2005.11401 , url =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.11401 2021

  28. [28]

    Deutsch, Daniel and Bedrax-Weiss, Tania and Roth, Dan , year = 2021, month = aug, journal =. Towards. doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00397 , url =

    work page doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00397 2021

  29. [29]

    and Shen, Yelong and Wallis, Phillip and others , year = 2021, month = oct, publisher =

    Hu, Edward J. and Shen, Yelong and Wallis, Phillip and others , year = 2021, month = oct, publisher =. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2106.09685 , url =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2106.09685 2021

  30. [30]

    Qian, Yili and Jia, Chaochao and Liu, Yimei , year = 2021, month = aug, journal =. Bert-

    2021

  31. [31]

    Zhang, Mike and Jensen, Kristian N

  32. [32]

    Kompetencer:

    Zhang, Mike and Jensen, Kristian N. Kompetencer:

  33. [33]

    Building a

    Chiusano, Fabio , year = 2022, month = may, journal =. Building a

    2022

  34. [34]

    Lewkowycz, Aitor and Andreassen, Anders and Dohan, David and others , year = 2022, month = jul, publisher =. Solving. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2206.14858 , url =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2206.14858 2022

  35. [35]

    Computers & Operations Research , volume = 144, pages = 105821, doi =

    The efficacy of tournament designs , author =. Computers & Operations Research , volume = 144, pages = 105821, doi =

  36. [36]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2203.02155 , url =

    Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback , author =. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2203.02155 , url =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2203.02155

  37. [37]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2308.07201 , url =

    Chan, Chi-Min and Chen, Weize and Su, Yusheng and others , year = 2023, month = aug, publisher =. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2308.07201 , url =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.07201 2023

  38. [38]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2304.11060 , url =

    Li, Nan and Kang, Bo and De Bie, Tijl , year = 2023, month = oct, publisher =. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2304.11060 , url =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.11060 2023

  39. [39]

    Zhao, Xiaoyan and Deng, Yang and Yang, Min and others , year = 2023, month = jun, publisher =. A. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2306.02051 , url =

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.02051 2023

  40. [40]

    Azar, Mohammad Gheshlaghi and Rowland, Mark and Piot, Bilal and others , year = 2023, month = nov, publisher =. A. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2310.12036 , url =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.12036 2023

  41. [41]

    Artificial intelligence and knowledge management:

    Jarrahi, Mohammad Hossein and Askay, David and Eshraghi, Ali and others , year = 2023, month = jan, journal =. Artificial intelligence and knowledge management:. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2022.03.002 , url =

    doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2022.03.002 2023

  42. [42]

    Chiang, Cheng-Han and Lee, Hung-yi , year = 2023, month = may, publisher =. Can. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2305.01937 , url =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.01937 2023

  43. [43]

    Chain-of-

    Wei, Jason and Wang, Xuezhi and Schuurmans, Dale and others , year = 2023, month = jan, publisher =. Chain-of-. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2201.11903 , url =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2201.11903 2023

  44. [44]

    Rafailov, Rafael and Sharma, Archit and Mitchell, Eric and others , year = 2023, month = dec, publisher =. Direct. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2305.18290 , url =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.18290 2023

  45. [45]

    Boubdir, Meriem and Kim, Edward and Ermis, Beyza and others , year = 2023, month = nov, publisher =. Elo. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2311.17295 , url =

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2311.17295 2023

  46. [46]

    Decorte, Jens-Joris and Verlinden, Severine and Van Hautte, Jeroen and others , year = 2023, month = jul, publisher =. Extreme. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2307.10778 , url =

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.10778 2023

  47. [47]

    Knowledge

    Martino, Ariana and Iannelli, Michael and Truong, Coleen , year = 2023, booktitle =. Knowledge. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-43458-7_34 , language =

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-43458-7_34 2023

  48. [48]

    Wu, Ning and Gong, Ming and Shou, Linjun and others , year = 2023, booktitle =. Large. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-44693-1_54 , language =

    doi:10.1007/978-3-031-44693-1_54 2023

  49. [49]

    Xu, Derong and Chen, Wei and Peng, Wenjun and others , year = 2023, month = dec, publisher =. Large. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2312.17617 , url =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2312.17617 2023

  50. [50]

    Practical

    Raschka, Sebastian , year = 2023, month = nov, url =. Practical

    2023

  51. [51]

    Min, Bonan and Ross, Hayley and Sulem, Elior and others , year = 2023, month = sep, journal =. Recent. doi:10.1145/3605943 , url =

    doi:10.1145/3605943 2023

  52. [52]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2302.04166 , url =

    Fu, Jinlan and Ng, See-Kiong and Jiang, Zhengbao and others , year = 2023, month = feb, publisher =. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2302.04166 , url =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.04166 2023

  53. [53]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2302.13971 , url =

    Touvron, Hugo and Lavril, Thibaut and Izacard, Gautier and others , year = 2023, month = feb, publisher =. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2302.13971 , url =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.13971 2023

  54. [54]

    De Bruin, Jonathan , year = 2023, month = mar, url =

    2023

  55. [55]

    Attention

    Vaswani, Ashish and Shazeer, Noam and Parmar, Niki and others , year = 2023, month = aug, publisher =. Attention. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1706.03762 , url =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1706.03762 2023

  56. [56]

    Holistic

    Liang, Percy and Bommasani, Rishi and Lee, Tony and others , year = 2023, month = oct, publisher =. Holistic. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2211.09110 , url =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2211.09110 2023

  57. [57]

    Zheng, Lianmin and Chiang, Wei-Lin and Sheng, Ying and others , year = 2023, month = dec, publisher =. Judging. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2306.05685 , url =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.05685 2023

  58. [58]

    and Sablayrolles, Alexandre and Mensch, Arthur and others , year = 2023, month = oct, publisher =

    Jiang, Albert Q. and Sablayrolles, Alexandre and Mensch, Arthur and others , year = 2023, month = oct, publisher =. Mistral. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2310.06825 , url =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.06825 2023

  59. [59]

    Summarization is (

    Pu, Xiao and Gao, Mingqi and Wan, Xiaojun , year = 2023, month = sep, publisher =. Summarization is (. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2309.09558 , url =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.09558 2023

  60. [60]

    JOBSKAPE: A Framework for Generating Synthetic Job Postings to Enhance Skill Matching

    Magron, Antoine and Dai, Anna and Zhang, Mike and others , year = 2024, month = feb, publisher =. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2402.03242 , url =

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.03242 2024

  61. [61]

    Jin, Hanlei and Zhang, Yang and Meng, Dan and others , year = 2024, month = mar, publisher =. A. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2403.02901 , url =

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.02901 2024

  62. [62]

    Sch\". An. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering , volume = 50, number = 1, pages =. doi:10.1109/TSE.2023.3334955 , url =

    arXiv 2023

  63. [63]

    Huang, Hui and Qu, Yingqi and Bu, Xingyuan and others , year = 2024, month = nov, publisher =. An. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2403.02839 , url =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.02839 2024

  64. [64]

    LangChain Blog , url =

    Enhancing. LangChain Blog , url =

  65. [65]

    Foundational

    Anwar, Usman and Saparov, Abulhair and Rando, Javier and others , year = 2024, month = sep, publisher =. Foundational. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2404.09932 , url =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.09932 2024

  66. [66]

    From human experts to machines:

    Kommineni, Vamsi Krishna and K\". From human experts to machines:

  67. [67]

    Yang, Linyao and Chen, Hongyang and Li, Zhao and others , year = 2024, journal =. Give. doi:10.1109/TKDE.2024.3360454 , url =

    arXiv 2024

  68. [68]

    Llama 3.2:

    MetaAI , year = 2024, month = sep, journal =. Llama 3.2:

    2024

  69. [69]

    Abdin, Marah and Jacobs, Sam Ade and Awan, Ammar Ahmad and others , year = 2024, month = may, publisher =. Phi-3

    2024

  70. [70]

    Rethinking

    Nguyen, Khanh Cao and Zhang, Mike and Montariol, Syrielle and others , year = 2024, month = feb, publisher =. Rethinking

    2024

  71. [71]

    Wang, Rui and Mi, Fei and Chen, Yi and others , year = 2024, month = mar, publisher =. Role

    2024

  72. [72]

    Nature Communications , volume = 15, number = 1, pages = 1418, doi =

    Structured information extraction from scientific text with large language models , author =. Nature Communications , volume = 15, number = 1, pages = 1418, doi =

  73. [73]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2303.08774 , url =

    OpenAI and Achiam, Josh and Adler, Steven and others , year = 2024, month = mar, publisher =. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2303.08774 , url =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.08774 2024

  74. [74]

    OpenAI , year = 2024, month = jul, url =

    2024

  75. [75]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2402.01306 , url =

    Ethayarajh, Kawin and Xu, Winnie and Muennighoff, Niklas and others , year = 2024, month = feb, publisher =. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2402.01306 , url =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.01306 2024

  76. [76]

    Grootendorst, Maarten , year = 2024, month = apr, url =

    2024

  77. [77]

    Schmid, Philipp , year = 2024, month = jan, url =

    2024

  78. [78]

    Naveed, Humza and Khan, Asad Ullah and Qiu, Shi and others , year = 2024, month = apr, publisher =. A

    2024

  79. [79]

    Chang, Yupeng and Wang, Xu and Wang, Jindong and others , year = 2024, journal =. A. doi:10.1145/3641289 , url =

    doi:10.1145/3641289 2024

  80. [80]

    Benchmarking

    Zhang, Tianyi and Ladhak, Faisal and Durmus, Esin and others , year = 2024, month = jan, journal =. Benchmarking. doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00632 , url =

    doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00632 2024

Showing first 80 references.