REVIEW 2 cited by
GameEval: Evaluating LLMs on Conversational Games
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
GameEval: Evaluating LLMs on Conversational Games
read the original abstract
The rapid advancements in large language models (LLMs) have presented challenges in evaluating those models. Existing evaluation methods are either reference-based or preference based, which inevitably need human intervention or introduce test bias caused by evaluator models. In this paper, we propose GameEval, a novel approach to evaluating LLMs through goal-driven conversational games, overcoming the limitations of previous methods. GameEval treats LLMs as game players and assigns them distinct roles with specific goals achieved by launching conversations of various forms, including discussion, question answering, and voting. We design three unique games with cooperative or adversarial objectives, accompanied by corresponding evaluation metrics, to show how this new paradigm comprehensively evaluates model performance.Through extensive experiments, we show that GameEval can effectively differentiate the capabilities of various LLMs, providing a comprehensive assessment of their integrated abilities to solve complex problems. Our public anonymous code is available at https://github.com/GameEval/GameEval.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Common-agency Games for Multi-Objective Test-Time Alignment
CAGE uses common-agency games and an EPEC algorithm to compute equilibrium policies that balance multiple conflicting objectives for test-time LLM alignment.
-
Multi-Turn Multi-Agent Dialogue for Collaborative Reconstruction Improves VLM Performance on Spatial Reasoning, But Only Barely
Multi-turn multi-agent dialogue improves VLM spatial reasoning in collaborative reconstruction only marginally, with text descriptions outperforming visual inputs.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.