Related papers: PeerRank: Autonomous LLM Evaluation Through Web-Gr…

The impressive performance of large language models (LLMs) has attracted considerable attention from the academic and industrial communities. Besides how to construct and train LLMs, how to effectively evaluate and compare the capacity of…

Nowadays, the quality of responses generated by different modern large language models (LLMs) is hard to evaluate and compare automatically. Recent studies suggest and predominantly use LLMs for reference-free evaluation of open-ended…

Existing large language models (LLMs) evaluation methods typically focus on testing the performance on some closed-environment and domain-specific benchmarks with human annotations. In this paper, we explore a novel unsupervised evaluation…

With the rapid growth of academic publications, peer review has become an essential yet time-consuming responsibility within the research community. Large Language Models (LLMs) have increasingly been adopted to assist in the generation of…

Peer review is a multi-stage process involving reviews, rebuttals, meta-reviews, final decisions, and subsequent manuscript revisions. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have motivated methods that assist or automate different…

Peer review underpins scientific progress, but it is increasingly strained by reviewer shortages and growing workloads. Large Language Models (LLMs) can automatically draft reviews now, but determining whether LLM-generated reviews are…

Large Language Models are versatile general-task solvers, and their capabilities can truly assist people with scholarly peer review as \textit{pre-review} agents, if not as fully autonomous \textit{peer-review} agents. While incredibly…

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in scientific peer review, assisting with drafting, rewriting, expansion, and refinement. However, existing peer-review LLM detection methods largely treat authorship as a binary…

We present AutoBench, a fully automated and self-sustaining framework for evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) through reciprocal peer assessment. This paper provides a rigorous scientific validation of the AutoBench methodology,…

LLM evaluation is challenging even the case of base models. In real world deployments, evaluation is further complicated by the interplay of task specific prompts and experiential context. At scale, bias evaluation is often based on short…

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have emerged to tackle the challenges of Visual Question Answering (VQA), sparking a new research focus on conducting objective evaluations of these models. Existing evaluation methods face…

We propose the PeerRank method for peer assessment. This constructs a grade for an agent based on the grades proposed by the agents evaluating the agent. Since the grade of an agent is a measure of their ability to grade correctly, the…

We propose LLM-PeerReview, an unsupervised LLM Ensemble method that selects the most ideal response from multiple LLM-generated candidates for each query, harnessing the collective wisdom of multiple models with diverse strengths.…

As large language models (LLMs) continue to advance, accurately and comprehensively evaluating their performance becomes increasingly challenging. Ranking the relative performance of LLMs based on Elo ratings, according to human judgment,…

Large Language Models (LLMs) are rapidly evolving and impacting various fields, necessitating the development of effective methods to evaluate and compare their performance. Most current approaches for performance evaluation are either…

The rapid development of large language models (LLMs) has highlighted the need for efficient and reliable methods to evaluate their performance. Traditional evaluation methods often face challenges like high costs, limited task formats,…

Pluralistic alignment has emerged as a critical frontier in the development of Large Language Models (LLMs), with reward models (RMs) serving as a central mechanism for capturing diverse human values. While benchmarks for general response…

Peer review is an essential process to determine the quality of papers submitted to scientific conferences or journals. However, it is subjective and prone to biases. Several studies have been conducted to apply techniques from NLP to…

As LLMs rapidly saturate existing benchmarks, automated benchmark creation using LLMs (LLM-as-a-benchmark) -- where a model generates test inputs (LLM-as-a-testset) and evaluates outputs (LLM-as-an-evaluator) -- has gained traction as a…

Double-blind peer review mechanism has become the skeleton of academic research across multiple disciplines including computer science, yet several studies have questioned the quality of peer reviews and raised concerns on potential biases…