Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 93 references

(Towards) Scalable Reliable Automated Evaluation with Large Language Models

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-07-31 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Multiple LLMs comparing outputs pairwise and ranked by Elo can match expert judgments of free-form text quality without reference answers.

desk verdict Clean packaging of multi-LLM pairwise + Elo with tunable thresholds, but the headline correlations rest on n≈20 and never clear p<0.05. read the letter →

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

Bertil Braun , Martin Forell This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.LG
keywords LLM-as-a-judgepairwisecomparisonEloratingreference-freeevaluationcompetencyprofilesagreementthresholdautomatedrankingmulti-modelaggregation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

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.

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.

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

Extended reading notes

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.

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.”

Editorial extensions

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.

Reading between the lines

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.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, 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 · score 0.0 of 10

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.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 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.
assumptions (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)
    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.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of (Towards) Scalable Reliable Automated Evaluation with Large Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DZCSQYD4

@misc{pith2026260728282,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: (Towards) Scalable Reliable Automated Evaluation with Large Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DZCSQYD4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.28282}
}
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 the authors.

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. Overview of the message prompt used in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  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

Show all 93 references
  1. [9]

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

    2004

  2. [10]

    IJWBC , volume = 1, pages =

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

  3. [11]

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

    2004

  4. [12]

    Pearson versus

    Bolboaca, Sorana and J\". Pearson versus

  5. [13]

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

    2007

  6. [14]

    regression in machine translation evaluation , author =

    Ranking vs. regression in machine translation evaluation , author =

  7. [15]

    Automatic

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

    2010

  8. [16]

    , year = 2010, publisher =

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

    2010

  9. [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. [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

  11. [19]

    Employee competences in manufacturing companies –

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

  12. [20]

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

    2017 doi arXiv

  13. [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 =

    2019 doi arXiv

  14. [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 =

    2020 doi arXiv

  15. [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 =

    2020 doi arXiv

  16. [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 =

    2020 doi arXiv

  17. [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 =

    2021 doi arXiv

  18. [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 =

    2021 doi

  19. [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 =

    2021 doi arXiv

  20. [28]

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

    2021 doi

  21. [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 =

    2021 doi arXiv

  22. [30]

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

    2021

  23. [31]

    Zhang, Mike and Jensen, Kristian N

  24. [32]

    Kompetencer:

    Zhang, Mike and Jensen, Kristian N. Kompetencer:

  25. [33]

    Building a

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

    2022

  26. [34]

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

    2022 doi arXiv

  27. [35]

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

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

  28. [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 =

    doi arXiv

  29. [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 =

    2023 doi arXiv

  30. [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 =

    2023 doi arXiv

  31. [39]

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

    2023 doi arXiv

  32. [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 =

    2023 doi arXiv

  33. [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 =

    2023 doi

  34. [42]

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

    2023 doi arXiv

  35. [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 =

    2023 doi arXiv

  36. [44]

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

    2023 doi arXiv

  37. [45]

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

    2023 doi arXiv

  38. [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 =

    2023 doi arXiv

  39. [47]

    Knowledge

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

    2023 doi

  40. [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 =

    2023 doi

  41. [49]

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

    2023 doi arXiv

  42. [50]

    Practical

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

    2023

  43. [51]

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

    2023 doi

  44. [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 =

    2023 doi arXiv

  45. [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 =

    2023 doi arXiv

  46. [54]

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

    2023

  47. [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 =

    2023 doi arXiv

  48. [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 =

    2023 doi arXiv

  49. [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 =

    2023 doi arXiv

  50. [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 =

    2023 doi arXiv

  51. [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 =

    2023 doi arXiv

  52. [60]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2402.03242 , url =

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

    2024 doi arXiv

  53. [61]

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

    2024 doi

  54. [62]

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

    2023

  55. [63]

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

    2024 doi arXiv

  56. [64]

    LangChain Blog , url =

    Enhancing. LangChain Blog , url =

  57. [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 =

    2024 doi arXiv

  58. [66]

    From human experts to machines:

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

  59. [67]

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

    2024

  60. [68]

    Llama 3.2:

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

    2024

  61. [69]

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

    2024

  62. [70]

    Rethinking

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

    2024

  63. [71]

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

    2024

  64. [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 =

  65. [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 =

    2024 doi arXiv

  66. [74]

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

    2024

  67. [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 =

    2024 doi arXiv

  68. [76]

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

    2024

  69. [77]

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

    2024

  70. [78]

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

    2024

  71. [79]

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

    2024 doi

  72. [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 =

    2024 doi

  73. [81]

    Team, Gemini and Anil, Rohan and Borgeaud, Sebastian and others , year = 2024, month = jun, publisher =. Gemini:. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2312.11805 , url =

    2024 doi arXiv

  74. [82]

    doi:10.34740/KAGGLE/M/3301 , url =

    Gemma , author =. doi:10.34740/KAGGLE/M/3301 , url =

    doi

  75. [83]

    Wang, Peiyi and Li, Lei and Chen, Liang and others , year = 2024, month = aug, booktitle =. Large. doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.511 , url =

    2024 doi

  76. [84]

    meta-llama/

    Meta Llama , year = 2024, month = dec, url =. meta-llama/

    2024

  77. [85]

    mistralai/

    Mistral AI , year = 2024, url =. mistralai/

    2024

  78. [86]

    and Sablayrolles, Alexandre and Roux, Antoine and others , year = 2024, month = jan, publisher =

    Jiang, Albert Q. and Sablayrolles, Alexandre and Roux, Antoine and others , year = 2024, month = jan, publisher =. Mixtral of. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2401.04088 , url =

    2024 doi arXiv

  79. [87]

    Preference

    Song, Feifan and Yu, Bowen and Li, Minghao and others , year = 2024, month = feb, publisher =. Preference. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2306.17492 , url =

    2024 doi arXiv

  80. [88]

    Grattafiori, Aaron and Dubey, Abhimanyu and Jauhri, Abhinav and others , year = 2024, month = nov, publisher =. The. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2407.21783 , urldate =

    2024 doi arXiv

  81. [89]

    Aligning with

    Liu, Yinhong and Zhou, Han and Guo, Zhijiang and others , year = 2025, month = jan, publisher =. Aligning with. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2403.16950 , url =

    2025 doi arXiv

  82. [90]

    Wu, Minghao and Aji, Alham Fikri , year = 2025, month = jan, booktitle =. Style

    2025

  83. [91]

    Zhao, Wayne Xin and Zhou, Kun and Li, Junyi and others , year = 2025, month = mar, publisher =. A. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2303.18223 , url =

    2025 doi arXiv

  84. [92]

    Gu, Jiawei and Jiang, Xuhui and Shi, Zhichao and others , year = 2025, month = mar, publisher =. A. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2411.15594 , url =

    2025 doi arXiv

  85. [93]

    Gemini 2.0

    Google DeepMind , year = 2025, month = apr, journal =. Gemini 2.0

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed July 31, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.