Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Is GPT-4 a reliable rater? Evaluating Consistency in GPT-4 Text Ratings

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 2308.02575 v1 pith:EWI2LRLD submitted 2023-08-03 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords ratingsstylecontentgpt-4acrossconsistencymodelreliability
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

This study investigates the consistency of feedback ratings generated by OpenAI's GPT-4, a state-of-the-art artificial intelligence language model, across multiple iterations, time spans and stylistic variations. The model rated responses to tasks within the Higher Education (HE) subject domain of macroeconomics in terms of their content and style. Statistical analysis was conducted in order to learn more about the interrater reliability, consistency of the ratings across iterations and the correlation between ratings in terms of content and style. The results revealed a high interrater reliability with ICC scores ranging between 0.94 and 0.99 for different timespans, suggesting that GPT-4 is capable of generating consistent ratings across repetitions with a clear prompt. Style and content ratings show a high correlation of 0.87. When applying a non-adequate style the average content ratings remained constant, while style ratings decreased, which indicates that the large language model (LLM) effectively distinguishes between these two criteria during evaluation. The prompt used in this study is furthermore presented and explained. Further research is necessary to assess the robustness and reliability of AI models in various use cases.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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. How Benchmark Prediction from Fewer Data Misses the Mark

    cs.LG 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Benchmark prediction methods mostly work by interpolation among similar models and fail on better, unfamiliar models, where random sampling with an AIPW-style correction is the only consistent improvement.

Pith tools