Auto-PRE: An Automatic and Cost-Efficient Peer-Review Framework for Language Generation Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.12265v2
• Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2025 09:14:22 GMT
• Title: Auto-PRE: An Automatic and Cost-Efficient Peer-Review Framework for Language Generation Evaluation
• Authors: Junjie Chen, Weihang Su, Zhumin Chu, Haitao Li, Yujia Zhou, Dingbo Yuan, Xudong Wang, Jun Zhou, Yiqun Liu, Min Zhang, Shaoping Ma, Qingyao Ai,
• Abstract summary: Auto-PRE is an automatic evaluation framework inspired by the peer review process.<n>Unlike previous approaches that rely on human annotations, Auto-PRE automatically selects evaluators based on three core traits.<n> Experiments on three representative tasks, including summarization, non-factoid QA, and dialogue generation, demonstrate that Auto-PRE achieves state-of-the-art performance.
• Score: 52.76508734756661
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: 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, dependence on human references, and systematic biases. To address these limitations, we propose Auto-PRE, an automatic LLM evaluation framework inspired by the peer review process. Unlike previous approaches that rely on human annotations, Auto-PRE automatically selects evaluator LLMs based on three core traits: consistency, pertinence, and self-confidence, which correspond to the instruction, content, and response stages, respectively, and collectively cover the entire evaluation process. Experiments on three representative tasks, including summarization, non-factoid QA, and dialogue generation, demonstrate that Auto-PRE achieves state-of-the-art performance while significantly reducing evaluation costs. Furthermore, the structured and scalable design of our automatic qualification exam framework provides valuable insights into automating the evaluation of LLMs-as-judges, paving the way for more advanced LLM-based evaluation frameworks.

Related papers

• Benchmarking Contextual Understanding for In-Car Conversational Systems [0.9437812993238097]
  In-Car Conversational Question Answering (ConvQA) systems significantly enhance user experience by enabling seamless voice interactions.<n>This paper explores the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) alongside advanced prompting techniques and agent-based methods to evaluate the extent to which ConvQA system responses adhere to user utterances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-12T21:15:49Z)
• CRACQ: A Multi-Dimensional Approach To Automated Document Assessment [0.0]
  CRACQ is a multi-dimensional evaluation framework tailored to evaluate documents across f i v e specific traits: Coherence, Rigor, Appropriateness, Completeness, and Quality.<n>It integrates linguistic, semantic, and structural signals into a cumulative assessment, enabling both holistic and trait-level analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-26T17:01:54Z)
• Monocle: Hybrid Local-Global In-Context Evaluation for Long-Text Generation with Uncertainty-Based Active Learning [63.531262595858]
  Divide-and-conquer approach breaks comprehensive evaluation task into localized scoring tasks, followed by a final global assessment.<n>We introduce a hybrid in-context learning approach that leverages human annotations to enhance the performance of both local and global evaluations.<n>Finally, we develop an uncertainty-based active learning algorithm that efficiently selects data samples for human annotation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-26T16:39:41Z)
• From Rankings to Insights: Evaluation Should Shift Focus from Leaderboard to Feedback [36.68929551237421]
  We introduce bftextFeedbacker, an evaluation framework that provides comprehensive and fine-grained results.<n>Our project homepage and dataset are available at https://liudan193.io/Feedbacker.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-10T16:52:40Z)
• Multi-Agent LLM Judge: automatic personalized LLM judge design for evaluating natural language generation applications [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance across diverse domains, yet they still encounter challenges such as insufficient domain-specific knowledge, biases, and hallucinations.<n>Traditional evaluation methods, which rely on word overlap or text embeddings, are inadequate for capturing the nuanced semantic information necessary to evaluate dynamic, open-ended text generation.<n>We propose a novel dynamic multi-agent system that automatically designs personalized LLM judges for various natural language generation applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-01T09:36:56Z)
• PanguIR Technical Report for NTCIR-18 AEOLLM Task [12.061652026366591]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly critical and challenging to evaluate. Manual evaluation, while comprehensive, is often costly and resource-intensive. automatic evaluation offers greater scalability but is constrained by the limitations of its evaluation criteria.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-04T07:40:02Z)
• ReviewEval: An Evaluation Framework for AI-Generated Reviews [9.35023998408983]
  This research introduces a comprehensive evaluation framework for AI-generated reviews. It measures alignment with human evaluations, verifies factual accuracy, assesses analytical depth, and identifies actionable insights. Our framework establishes standardized metrics for evaluating AI-based review systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T12:22:11Z)
• Re-evaluating Automatic LLM System Ranking for Alignment with Human Preference [63.03859517284341]
  An automatic evaluation framework aims to rank LLMs based on their alignment with human preferences.<n>An automatic LLM bencher consists of four components: the input set, the evaluation model, the evaluation type and the aggregation method.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-31T17:46:51Z)
• StructTest: Benchmarking LLMs' Reasoning through Compositional Structured Outputs [78.84060166851805]
  StructTest is a novel benchmark that evaluates large language models (LLMs) on their ability to follow compositional instructions and generate structured outputs.<n> Assessments are conducted deterministically using a rule-based evaluator, which can be easily extended to new tasks and datasets.<n>We demonstrate that StructTest remains challenging even for top-performing models like Deepseek-V3/R1 and GPT-4o.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-23T22:08:40Z)
• HREF: Human Response-Guided Evaluation of Instruction Following in Language Models [61.273153125847166]
  We develop a new evaluation benchmark, Human Response-Guided Evaluation of Instruction Following (HREF) In addition to providing reliable evaluation, HREF emphasizes individual task performance and is free from contamination. We study the impact of key design choices in HREF, including the size of the evaluation set, the judge model, the baseline model, and the prompt template.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-20T03:26:47Z)
• SelfPrompt: Autonomously Evaluating LLM Robustness via Domain-Constrained Knowledge Guidelines and Refined Adversarial Prompts [0.6291443816903801]
  This paper introduces a novel framework designed to autonomously evaluate the robustness of large language models (LLMs)<n>Our method generates descriptive sentences from domain-constrained knowledge graph triplets to formulate adversarial prompts.<n>This self-evaluation mechanism allows the LLM to evaluate its robustness without the need for external benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-01T10:58:53Z)
• Automated Feedback in Math Education: A Comparative Analysis of LLMs for Open-Ended Responses [0.0]
  This study aims to explore the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs) in facilitating automated feedback in math education. We employ Mistral, a version of Llama catered to math, and fine-tune this model for evaluating student responses by leveraging a dataset of student responses and teacher-written feedback for middle-school math problems. We evaluate the model's performance in scoring accuracy and the quality of feedback by utilizing judgments from 2 teachers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-29T16:57:45Z)
• Optimizing the role of human evaluation in LLM-based spoken document summarization systems [0.0]
  We propose an evaluation paradigm for spoken document summarization explicitly tailored for generative AI content. We provide detailed evaluation criteria and best practices guidelines to ensure robustness in the experimental design, replicability, and trustworthiness of human evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-23T18:37:14Z)
• AERA Chat: An Interactive Platform for Automated Explainable Student Answer Assessment [12.970776782360366]
  AERA Chat is an interactive platform to provide visually explained assessment of student answers. Users can input questions and student answers to obtain automated, explainable assessment results from large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-12T11:57:53Z)
• Auto-Arena: Automating LLM Evaluations with Agent Peer Battles and Committee Discussions [77.66677127535222]
  Auto-Arena is an innovative framework that automates the entire evaluation process using LLM-powered agents. In our experiments, Auto-Arena shows a 92.14% correlation with human preferences, surpassing all previous expert-annotated benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-30T17:19:19Z)
• Aligning with Human Judgement: The Role of Pairwise Preference in Large Language Model Evaluators [48.54465599914978]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated promising capabilities in assessing the quality of generated natural language. LLMs still exhibit biases in evaluation and often struggle to generate coherent evaluations that align with human assessments. We introduce Pairwise-preference Search (PairS), an uncertainty-guided search method that employs LLMs to conduct pairwise comparisons and efficiently ranks candidate texts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-25T17:11:28Z)
• Large Language Models as Automated Aligners for benchmarking Vision-Language Models [48.4367174400306]
  Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have reached a new level of sophistication, showing notable competence in executing intricate cognition and reasoning tasks. Existing evaluation benchmarks, primarily relying on rigid, hand-crafted datasets, face significant limitations in assessing the alignment of these increasingly anthropomorphic models with human intelligence. In this work, we address the limitations via Auto-Bench, which delves into exploring LLMs as proficient curation, measuring the alignment betweenVLMs and human intelligence and value through automatic data curation and assessment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-24T16:12:05Z)
• LLMs as Narcissistic Evaluators: When Ego Inflates Evaluation Scores [23.568883428947494]
  We investigate whether prominent LM-based evaluation metrics demonstrate a favorable bias toward their respective underlying LMs in the context of summarization tasks. Our findings unveil a latent bias, particularly pronounced when such evaluation metrics are used in a reference-free manner without leveraging gold summaries. These results underscore that assessments provided by generative evaluation models can be influenced by factors beyond the inherent text quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T10:43:26Z)
• Calibrating LLM-Based Evaluator [92.17397504834825]
  We propose AutoCalibrate, a multi-stage, gradient-free approach to calibrate and align an LLM-based evaluator toward human preference. Instead of explicitly modeling human preferences, we first implicitly encompass them within a set of human labels. Our experiments on multiple text quality evaluation datasets illustrate a significant improvement in correlation with expert evaluation through calibration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-23T08:46:11Z)
• ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debate [57.71597869337909]
  We build a multi-agent referee team called ChatEval to autonomously discuss and evaluate the quality of generated responses from different models. Our analysis shows that ChatEval transcends mere textual scoring, offering a human-mimicking evaluation process for reliable assessments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-14T15:13:04Z)
• From Static Benchmarks to Adaptive Testing: Psychometrics in AI Evaluation [60.14902811624433]
  We discuss a paradigm shift from static evaluation methods to adaptive testing. This involves estimating the characteristics and value of each test item in the benchmark and dynamically adjusting items in real-time. We analyze the current approaches, advantages, and underlying reasons for adopting psychometrics in AI evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-18T09:54:33Z)
• Evaluating the Performance of Large Language Models on GAOKAO Benchmark [53.663757126289795]
  This paper introduces GAOKAO-Bench, an intuitive benchmark that employs questions from the Chinese GAOKAO examination as test samples. With human evaluation, we obtain the converted total score of LLMs, including GPT-4, ChatGPT and ERNIE-Bot. We also use LLMs to grade the subjective questions, and find that model scores achieve a moderate level of consistency with human scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-21T14:39:28Z)
• Towards Automatic Evaluation of Dialog Systems: A Model-Free Off-Policy Evaluation Approach [84.02388020258141]
  We propose a new framework named ENIGMA for estimating human evaluation scores based on off-policy evaluation in reinforcement learning. ENIGMA only requires a handful of pre-collected experience data, and therefore does not involve human interaction with the target policy during the evaluation. Our experiments show that ENIGMA significantly outperforms existing methods in terms of correlation with human evaluation scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-20T03:29:20Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.