REVIEW 3 cited by
CriticEval: Evaluating Large Language Model as Critic
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
Critique ability, i.e., the capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) to identify and rectify flaws in responses, is crucial for their applications in self-improvement and scalable oversight. While numerous studies have been proposed to evaluate critique ability of LLMs, their comprehensiveness and reliability are still limited. To overcome this problem, we introduce CriticEval, a novel benchmark designed to comprehensively and reliably evaluate critique ability of LLMs. Specifically, to ensure the comprehensiveness, CriticEval evaluates critique ability from four dimensions across nine diverse task scenarios. It evaluates both scalar-valued and textual critiques, targeting responses of varying quality. To ensure the reliability, a large number of critiques are annotated to serve as references, enabling GPT-4 to evaluate textual critiques reliably. Extensive evaluations of open-source and closed-source LLMs first validate the reliability of evaluation in CriticEval. Then, experimental results demonstrate the promising potential of open-source LLMs, the effectiveness of critique datasets and several intriguing relationships between the critique ability and some critical factors, including task types, response qualities and critique dimensions.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Dual-Dimensional Consistency: Balancing Budget and Quality in Adaptive Inference-Time Scaling
DDC reduces token consumption by over 10x in LLM reasoning while maintaining or exceeding baseline accuracy across five benchmarks via adaptive path quality filtering.
-
CRITICTOOL: Evaluating Self-Critique Capabilities of Large Language Models in Tool-Calling Error Scenarios
CRITICTOOL, a benchmark of 2,740 tool-calling error scenarios built from BFCL and T-Eval with GPT-4o-based error injection, finds most LLMs rarely recover from tool-use errors, with GPT-4o best at 69.01 overall and to...
-
A Survey of Automatic Evaluation Methods on Text, Visual and Speech Generations
A unified taxonomy and comparative meta-evaluation of automatic evaluation methods across text, vision, and speech generation, concluding that LLM-based evaluators dominate current practice.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.