Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Auto-Arena: Automating LLM Evaluations with Agent Peer Battles and Committee Discussions

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 2405.20267 v4 pith:PXZITQHJ submitted 2024-05-30 cs.CL

Auto-Arena: Automating LLM Evaluations with Agent Peer Battles and Committee Discussions

classification cs.CL
keywords auto-arenahumanevaluationllmspeerbattlesbenchmarkscandidates
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

As LLMs continuously evolve, there is an urgent need for a reliable evaluation method that delivers trustworthy results promptly. Currently, static benchmarks suffer from inflexibility and unreliability, leading users to prefer human voting platforms like Chatbot Arena. However, human evaluations require significant manual effort. To address this, we propose the Auto-Arena, an innovative framework that automates the entire evaluation process using LLM-powered agents. Firstly, an LLM examiner generates questions. Then, two LLM candidates engage in a multi-round peer battle based on individual questions, aiming at revealing their true performance differences. Finally, a committee of LLM judges collaboratively discusses and decides the winner, reducing bias and enhancing fairness. During the peer battles, we observe intriguing scenarios where the LLM candidates display competitive behaviors and even learn from the opponents. In our extensive experiments involving 15 recent LLMs, Auto-Arena shows a 92.14% correlation with human preferences, surpassing all previous expert-annotated benchmarks without any manual efforts. As a result, Auto-Arena offers a promising alternative to current human evaluation platforms for evaluating LLMs automatically.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Diagnosing Multi-step Reasoning Failures in Black-box LLMs via Stepwise Confidence Attribution

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    SCA framework applies Information Bottleneck to assign step-level confidence in black-box LLM reasoning traces, flagging errors and boosting self-correction success by up to 13.5% on math and QA tasks.

  2. Diagnosing Multi-step Reasoning Failures in Black-box LLMs via Stepwise Confidence Attribution

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    SCA applies the Information Bottleneck principle via NIBS and GIBS methods to identify erroneous steps in black-box LLM reasoning and boosts self-correction success by up to 13.5%.

  3. LLMs-as-Judges: A Comprehensive Survey on LLM-based Evaluation Methods

    cs.CL 2024-12 accept novelty 3.0

    A survey that organizes LLMs-as-judges research into functionality, methodology, applications, meta-evaluation, and limitations.