Ranking Unraveled: Recipes for LLM Rankings in Head-to-Head AI Combat (2025.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Evaluating large language models (LLMs) is a complex task. Pairwise ranking has emerged as state-of-the-art method to evaluate human preferences. |
| Approach: | They propose to use pairwise ranking to evaluate human preferences . they propose to evaluate the robustness of ranking algorithms in LLMs . |
| Outcome: | The proposed methods are based on the principles of effective ranking and the robustness of several ranking algorithms in the context of LLMs. |
Similar Papers
Re-evaluating Automatic LLM System Ranking for Alignment with Human Preference (2025.findings-naacl)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Evaluating and ranking the capabilities of different LLMs is crucial for understanding their performance and alignment with human preferences. |
| Approach: | They propose a system-level evaluation framework that ranks LLMs based on their alignment with human preferences. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework aims to rank LLMs based on their performance and alignment with human preferences. |
From Generation to Judgment: Opportunities and Challenges of LLM-as-a-judge (2025.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
Dawei Li, Bohan Jiang, Liangjie Huang, Alimohammad Beigi, Chengshuai Zhao, Zhen Tan, Amrita Bhattacharjee, Yuxuan Jiang, Canyu Chen, Tianhao Wu, Kai Shu, Lu Cheng, Huan Liu
| Challenge: | Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) inspire the "LLM-as-a-judge" paradigm . traditional methods of assessment and evaluation fail in dynamic and open-ended scenarios . |
| Approach: | They propose a paradigm where LLMs are leveraged to perform scoring, ranking, or selection for machine learning evaluation scenarios. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model-based judgment and evaluation paradigms are based on large language models and are compared to the current model-driven evaluation paradigm. |
A Systematic Survey and Critical Review on Evaluating Large Language Models: Challenges, Limitations, and Recommendations (2024.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
Md Tahmid Rahman Laskar, Sawsan Alqahtani, M Saiful Bari, Mizanur Rahman, Mohammad Abdullah Matin Khan, Haidar Khan, Israt Jahan, Amran Bhuiyan, Chee Wei Tan, Md Rizwan Parvez, Enamul Hoque, Shafiq Joty, Jimmy Huang
| Challenge: | Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained significant attention due to their capabilities in performing diverse tasks across domains. |
| Approach: | They review the primary challenges and limitations causing inconsistencies in evaluations . early models could generate coherent text but limited to simple tasks . |
| Outcome: | The proposed evaluations are reproducible, reliable, and robust. |
How Good are LLM-based Rerankers? An Empirical Analysis of State-of-the-Art Reranking Models (2025.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | a systematic and comprehensive empirical evaluation of state-of-the-art reranking methods is presented. |
| Approach: | They evaluate 22 reranking methods including 40 variants across established benchmarks . primary goal is to determine whether performance disparity exists between LLM-based reranters and lightweight counterparts based on novel queries . |
| Outcome: | The proposed methods perform better on familiar queries than lightweight models, the authors show . |
Are Large Language Model-based Evaluators the Solution to Scaling Up Multilingual Evaluation? (2024.findings-eacl)
Copied to clipboard
Rishav Hada, Varun Gumma, Adrian Wynter, Harshita Diddee, Mohamed Ahmed, Monojit Choudhury, Kalika Bali, Sunayana Sitaram
| Challenge: | Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in various tasks, but their evaluation, especially in languages beyond the top 20, remains inadequate due to existing benchmarks and metrics limitations. |
| Approach: | They propose to use Large Language Models as evaluators to rank or score other models’ outputs by calibrating them against 20K human judgments across three text-generation tasks, five metrics, and eight languages. |
| Outcome: | The proposed evaluation methods can be used to improve multilingual evaluation by calibrating them against 20K human judgments across three text-generation tasks, five metrics, and eight languages. |
Leveraging Large Language Models for NLG Evaluation: Advances and Challenges (2024.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | introducing Large Language Models (LLMs) has opened new avenues for assessing generated content quality, e.g., coherence, creativity, and context relevance. |
| Approach: | They propose a taxonomy for organizing existing LLM-based evaluation metrics and a structured framework to understand and compare them. |
| Outcome: | The proposed taxonomy offers a framework to understand and compare LLM-based evaluation methods. |
Model Consistency as a Cheap yet Predictive Proxy for LLM Elo Scores (2025.emnlp-main)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | a rapid proliferation of large language models (LLMs) makes it difficult to assess which models are best suited for specific tasks. |
| Approach: | They find that the consistency of an LLM's Elo score is 91% correlated with its own human-produced Elo scores. |
| Outcome: | a new method to evaluate large language models is needed to scale with the increasing number of models released . current best way is to measure model's Elo score by comparing it to other models in contests . a simple proxy for Elo scores can be computed cheaply without human data or prior knowledge . |
Make Large Language Model a Better Ranker (2024.findings-emnlp)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate robust capabilities across various fields . current list-wise approaches fail in ranking tasks due to misalignment between ranking objectives and next-token prediction . |
| Approach: | They propose a large language model framework with Aligned Listwise Ranking Objectives (ALRO) this framework provides explicit feedback in a listwise manner by introducing soft lambda loss . |
| Outcome: | The proposed model outperforms existing recommendation methods and embedding-based recommendations without additional computational burdens. |
JuStRank: Benchmarking LLM Judges for System Ranking (2025.acl-long)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Recent work has focused on instance-based evaluation of LLM judges, where a judge is evaluated over a set of responses, or response pairs, while being agnostic to their source systems. |
| Approach: | They propose to validate the quality of the LLM judge itself by comparing system scores to a human-based ranking. |
| Outcome: | The proposed model fails to validate the quality of the judge itself, ignoring critical factors affecting system-level ranking, such as a judge’s positive or negative bias towards certain systems. |
SCORE: Systematic COnsistency and Robustness Evaluation for Large Language Models (2025.naacl-industry)
Copied to clipboard
| Challenge: | Typical evaluations of Large Language Models (LLMs) report a single accuracy metric per dataset, often derived from an optimized setup. |
| Approach: | They propose a framework for non-adversarial evaluation of large language models that evaluates models by repeatedly testing them on the same benchmarks in various setups. |
| Outcome: | The proposed framework evaluates models by repeatedly testing them on the same benchmarks in various setups to give a realistic estimate of their accuracy and consistency. |