Knockout LLM Assessment: Using Large Language Models for Evaluations through Iterative Pairwise Comparisons

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.03785v3
• Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2025 10:58:38 GMT
• Title: Knockout LLM Assessment: Using Large Language Models for Evaluations through Iterative Pairwise Comparisons
• Authors: Isik Baran Sandan, Tu Anh Dinh, Jan Niehues,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown to be effective evaluators across various domains.<n>We present Knockout Assessment, an LLM-asa Judge method using a knockout tournament system with iterative pairwise comparisons.
• Score: 13.187011661009459
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown to be effective evaluators across various domains such as machine translations or the scientific domain. Current LLM-as-a-Judge approaches rely mostly on individual assessments or a single round of pairwise assessments, preventing the judge LLM from developing a global ranking perspective. To address this, we present Knockout Assessment, an LLM-asa Judge method using a knockout tournament system with iterative pairwise comparisons. Experiments across three LLMs on two datasets show that knockout assessment improves scoring accuracy, increasing Pearson correlation with expert evaluations by 0.07 on average for university-level exam scoring and machine translation evaluations, aligning LLM assessments more closely with human scoring.

Related papers

• Evaluating Scoring Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge [8.751901240110888]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are employed as evaluators for complex tasks.<n>There are various biases within LLM-as-a-Judge, which adversely affect the fairness and reliability of judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-27T15:25:23Z)
• Bayesian Calibration of Win Rate Estimation with LLM Evaluators [20.588104799661014]
  We propose two methods to improve the accuracy of win rate estimation using large language models (LLMs) as evaluators. We empirically validate our methods on six datasets covering story generation, summarization, and instruction following tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-07T04:32:40Z)
• CompassJudger-1: All-in-one Judge Model Helps Model Evaluation and Evolution [74.41064280094064]
  textbfJudger-1 is the first open-source textbfall-in-one judge LLM. CompassJudger-1 is a general-purpose LLM that demonstrates remarkable versatility. textbfJudgerBench is a new benchmark that encompasses various subjective evaluation tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T17:56:51Z)
• ReIFE: Re-evaluating Instruction-Following Evaluation [105.75525154888655]
  We present a thorough meta-evaluation of instruction following, including 25 base LLMs and 15 proposed evaluation protocols. Our evaluation allows us to identify the best-performing base LLMs and evaluation protocols with a high degree of robustness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-09T17:14:50Z)
• Systematic Evaluation of LLM-as-a-Judge in LLM Alignment Tasks: Explainable Metrics and Diverse Prompt Templates [11.948519516797745]
  We develop an open-source framework to evaluate, compare, and visualize the reliability and alignment of LLM judges.<n>Our results indicate a significant impact of prompt templates on LLM judge performance, as well as a mediocre alignment level between the tested LLM judges and human evaluators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-23T11:49:01Z)
• DnA-Eval: Enhancing Large Language Model Evaluation through Decomposition and Aggregation [75.81096662788254]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are scalable and economical evaluators.<n>The question of how reliable these evaluators are has emerged as a crucial research question.<n>We propose Decompose and Aggregate, which breaks down the evaluation process into different stages based on pedagogical practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T08:12:30Z)
• Large Language Models are Inconsistent and Biased Evaluators [2.136983452580014]
  We show that Large Language Models (LLMs) are biased evaluators as they exhibit familiarity bias and show skewed distributions of ratings. We also found that LLMs are inconsistent evaluators, showing low "inter-sample" agreement and sensitivity to prompt differences that are insignificant to human understanding of text quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-02T20:42:28Z)
• Aligning with Human Judgement: The Role of Pairwise Preference in Large Language Model Evaluators [48.54465599914978]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated promising capabilities as automatic evaluators in assessing the quality of generated natural language.<n>LLMs still exhibit biases in evaluation and often struggle to generate coherent evaluations that align with human assessments.<n>We introduce Pairwise-preference Search (PAIRS), an uncertainty-guided search-based rank aggregation method that employs LLMs to conduct pairwise comparisons locally and efficiently ranks candidate texts globally.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-25T17:11:28Z)
• Evaluating Large Language Models at Evaluating Instruction Following [54.49567482594617]
  We introduce a challenging meta-evaluation benchmark, LLMBar, designed to test the ability of an LLM evaluator in discerning instruction-following outputs. We discover that different evaluators exhibit distinct performance on LLMBar and even the highest-scoring ones have substantial room for improvement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-11T16:38:11Z)
• LLM Comparative Assessment: Zero-shot NLG Evaluation through Pairwise Comparisons using Large Language Models [55.60306377044225]
  Large language models (LLMs) have enabled impressive zero-shot capabilities across various natural language tasks. This paper explores two options for exploiting the emergent abilities of LLMs for zero-shot NLG assessment. For moderate-sized open-source LLMs, such as FlanT5 and Llama2-chat, comparative assessment is superior to prompt scoring.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-15T22:02:12Z)

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.