Can Smaller Large Language Models Evaluate Research Quality?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.07196v1
• Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2025 06:18:40 GMT
• Title: Can Smaller Large Language Models Evaluate Research Quality?
• Authors: Mike Thelwall,
• Abstract summary: This article assesses Google's Gemma-3-27b-it, a downloadable LLM (60Gb)<n>The results for 104,187 articles show that Gemma-3-27b-it scores correlate positively with an expert research quality score proxy for all 34 Units of Assessment (broad fields) from the UK Research Excellence Framework 2021.
• Score: 3.9627148816681284
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Although both Google Gemini (1.5 Flash) and ChatGPT (4o and 4o-mini) give research quality evaluation scores that correlate positively with expert scores in nearly all fields, and more strongly that citations in most, it is not known whether this is true for smaller Large Language Models (LLMs). In response, this article assesses Google's Gemma-3-27b-it, a downloadable LLM (60Gb). The results for 104,187 articles show that Gemma-3-27b-it scores correlate positively with an expert research quality score proxy for all 34 Units of Assessment (broad fields) from the UK Research Excellence Framework 2021. The Gemma-3-27b-it correlations have 83.8% of the strength of ChatGPT 4o and 94.7% of the strength of ChatGPT 4o-mini correlations. Differently from the two larger LLMs, the Gemma-3-27b-it correlations do not increase substantially when the scores are averaged across five repetitions, its scores tend to be lower, and its reports are relatively uniform in style. Overall, the results show that research quality score estimation can be conducted by offline LLMs, so this capability is not an emergent property of the largest LLMs. Moreover, score improvement through repetition is not a universal feature of LLMs. In conclusion, although the largest LLMs still have the highest research evaluation score estimation capability, smaller ones can also be used for this task, and this can be helpful for cost saving or when secure offline processing is needed.

Related papers

• PanCanBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models in Pancreatic Oncology [48.732366302949515]
  Large language models (LLMs) have achieved expert-level performance on standardized examinations, yet multiple-choice accuracy poorly reflects real-world clinical utility and safety.<n>We developed a human-in-the-loop pipeline to create expert rubrics for de-identified patient questions.<n>We evaluated 22 proprietary and open-source LLMs using an LLM-as-a-judge framework, measuring clinical completeness, factual accuracy, and web-search integration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-02T00:50:39Z)
• Can Small and Reasoning Large Language Models Score Journal Articles for Research Quality and Do Averaging and Few-shot Help? [3.920564895363768]
  It is unclear whether smaller LLMs and reasoning models have similar abilities.<n>This is important because larger models may be slow and impractical in some situations, and reasoning models may perform differently.<n>Four relevant questions are addressed with Gemma3 variants, Llama4 Scout, Qwen3, Magistral Small and DeepSeek R1.<n>Results suggest that smaller (open weights) and reasoning LLMs have similar performance to ChatGPT 4o-mini and Gemini 2.0 Flash.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-25T18:12:41Z)
• Code Generation with Small Language Models: A Codeforces-Based Study [1.728619497446087]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate capabilities in code generation, potentially boosting developer productivity.<n>However, their adoption remains limited by high computational costs, among other factors.<n>Small Language Models (SLMs) present a lightweight alternative.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-09T23:57:44Z)
• GLIDER: Grading LLM Interactions and Decisions using Explainable Ranking [0.9614204956530676]
  We introduce GLIDER, a powerful 3B evaluator LLM that can score any text input and associated context on arbitrary user defined criteria.<n>GLIDER shows higher Pearson's correlation than GPT-4o on FLASK and greatly outperforms prior evaluation models.<n>It supports fine-grained scoring, multilingual reasoning, span highlighting and was trained on 685 domains and 183 criteria.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-18T18:41:12Z)
• A Large-Scale Study of Relevance Assessments with Large Language Models: An Initial Look [52.114284476700874]
  This paper reports on the results of a large-scale evaluation (the TREC 2024 RAG Track) where four different relevance assessment approaches were deployed. We find that automatically generated UMBRELA judgments can replace fully manual judgments to accurately capture run-level effectiveness. Surprisingly, we find that LLM assistance does not appear to increase correlation with fully manual assessments, suggesting that costs associated with human-in-the-loop processes do not bring obvious tangible benefits.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-13T01:12:35Z)
• Evaluating Research Quality with Large Language Models: An Analysis of ChatGPT's Effectiveness with Different Settings and Inputs [3.9627148816681284]
  This article assesses which ChatGPT inputs produce better quality score estimates.<n>The optimal input is the article title and abstract, with average ChatGPT scores based on these correlating at 0.67 with human scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-13T09:19:21Z)
• Are Large Language Models Strategic Decision Makers? A Study of Performance and Bias in Two-Player Non-Zero-Sum Games [56.70628673595041]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have been increasingly used in real-world settings, yet their strategic decision-making abilities remain largely unexplored. This work investigates the performance and merits of LLMs in canonical game-theoretic two-player non-zero-sum games, Stag Hunt and Prisoner Dilemma. Our structured evaluation of GPT-3.5, GPT-4-Turbo, GPT-4o, and Llama-3-8B shows that these models, when making decisions in these games, are affected by at least one of the following systematic biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-05T12:30:02Z)
• Distortions in Judged Spatial Relations in Large Language Models [45.875801135769585]
  GPT-4 exhibited superior performance with 55 percent accuracy, followed by GPT-3.5 at 47 percent, and Llama-2 at 45 percent. The models identified the nearest cardinal direction in most cases, reflecting their associative learning mechanism.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-08T20:08:04Z)
• "Knowing When You Don't Know": A Multilingual Relevance Assessment Dataset for Robust Retrieval-Augmented Generation [90.09260023184932]
  Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) grounds Large Language Model (LLM) output by leveraging external knowledge sources to reduce factual hallucinations. NoMIRACL is a human-annotated dataset for evaluating LLM robustness in RAG across 18 typologically diverse languages. We measure relevance assessment using: (i) hallucination rate, measuring model tendency to hallucinate, when the answer is not present in passages in the non-relevant subset, and (ii) error rate, measuring model inaccuracy to recognize relevant passages in the relevant subset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-18T17:18:04Z)
• Flames: Benchmarking Value Alignment of LLMs in Chinese [86.73527292670308]
  This paper proposes a value alignment benchmark named Flames. It encompasses both common harmlessness principles and a unique morality dimension that integrates specific Chinese values. Our findings indicate that all the evaluated LLMs demonstrate relatively poor performance on Flames.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-12T17:18:21Z)
• A Closer Look into Automatic Evaluation Using Large Language Models [75.49360351036773]
  We discuss how details in the evaluation process change how well the ratings given by LLMs correlate with human ratings. We find that the auto Chain-of-Thought (CoT) used in G-Eval does not always make G-Eval more aligned with human ratings. We also show that forcing the LLM to output only a numeric rating, as in G-Eval, is suboptimal.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-09T12:12:55Z)
• Split and Merge: Aligning Position Biases in LLM-based Evaluators [22.265542509143756]
  PORTIA is an alignment-based system designed to mimic human comparison strategies to calibrate position bias.<n>Our results show that PORTIA markedly enhances the consistency rates for all the models and comparison forms tested.<n>It rectifies around 80% of the position bias instances within the GPT-4 model, elevating its consistency rate up to 98%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-29T14:38:58Z)
• Large Language Models are Not Yet Human-Level Evaluators for Abstractive Summarization [66.08074487429477]
  We investigate the stability and reliability of large language models (LLMs) as automatic evaluators for abstractive summarization. We find that while ChatGPT and GPT-4 outperform the commonly used automatic metrics, they are not ready as human replacements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T14:58:13Z)

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.