PeerRank: Autonomous LLM Evaluation Through Web-Grounded, Bias-Controlled Peer Review

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.02589v1
• Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2026 06:01:28 GMT
• Title: PeerRank: Autonomous LLM Evaluation Through Web-Grounded, Bias-Controlled Peer Review
• Authors: Yanki Margalit, Erni Avram, Ran Taig, Oded Margalit, Nurit Cohen-Inger,
• Abstract summary: We introduce PeerRank, a fully autonomous end-to-end evaluation framework.<n>Models generate evaluation tasks, answer them with category-scoped live web grounding.<n>PeerRank treats evaluation as a multi-agent process where each model participates symmetrically as task designer, respondent, and evaluator.
• Score: 1.2178992475191557
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Evaluating large language models typically relies on human-authored benchmarks, reference answers, and human or single-model judgments, approaches that scale poorly, become quickly outdated, and mismatch open-world deployments that depend on web retrieval and synthesis. We introduce PeerRank, a fully autonomous end-to-end evaluation framework in which models generate evaluation tasks, answer them with category-scoped live web grounding, judge peer responses and aggregate dense peer assessments into relative performance estimates, without human supervision or gold references. PeerRank treats evaluation as a multi-agent process where each model participates symmetrically as task designer, respondent, and evaluator, while removing biased judgments. In a large-scale study over 12 commercially available models and 420 autonomously generated questions, PeerRank produces stable, discriminative rankings and reveals measurable identity and presentation biases. Rankings are robust, and mean peer scores agree with Elo. We further validate PeerRank on TruthfulQA and GSM8K, where peer scores correlate with objective accuracy. Together, these results suggest that bias-aware peer evaluation with selective web-grounded answering can scale open-world LLM assessment beyond static and human curated benchmarks.

Related papers

• The FACTS Leaderboard: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Large Language Model Factuality [70.45240108873001]
  The FACTS Leaderboard is an online leaderboard suite that comprehensively evaluates the ability of language models to generate factually accurate text.<n>The suite provides a holistic measure of factuality by aggregating the performance of models on four distinct sub-leaderboards.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-11T16:35:14Z)
• LLMs Judge Themselves: A Game-Theoretic Framework for Human-Aligned Evaluation [41.42324204820521]
  This work explores whether principles from game theory can be effectively applied to the evaluation of large language models (LLMs)<n>We propose a novel alternative: automatic mutual evaluation, where LLMs assess each other's output through self-play and peer review.<n>Our framework incorporates game-theoretic voting algorithms to aggregate peer reviews, enabling a principled investigation into whether model-generated rankings reflect human preferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-17T15:34:25Z)
• Reference-Free Rating of LLM Responses via Latent Information [53.463883683503106]
  We study the common practice of asking a judge model to assign Likert-scale scores to free-text responses.<n>We then propose and evaluate Latent Judges, which derive scalar ratings from internal model signals.<n>Across a broad suite of pairwise and single-rating benchmarks, latent methods match or surpass standard prompting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T12:15:52Z)
• RAG-Zeval: Towards Robust and Interpretable Evaluation on RAG Responses through End-to-End Rule-Guided Reasoning [64.46921169261852]
  RAG-Zeval is a novel end-to-end framework that formulates faithfulness and correctness evaluation as a rule-guided reasoning task.<n>Our approach trains evaluators with reinforcement learning, facilitating compact models to generate comprehensive and sound assessments.<n>Experiments demonstrate RAG-Zeval's superior performance, achieving the strongest correlation with human judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T14:55:33Z)
• SCAN: Structured Capability Assessment and Navigation for LLMs [54.54085382131134]
  textbfSCAN (Structured Capability Assessment and Navigation) is a practical framework that enables detailed characterization of Large Language Models.<n>SCAN incorporates four key components:.<n>TaxBuilder, which extracts capability-indicating tags from queries to construct a hierarchical taxonomy;.<n>RealMix, a query synthesis and filtering mechanism that ensures sufficient evaluation data for each capability tag;.<n>A PC$2$-based (Pre-Comparison-derived Criteria) LLM-as-a-Judge approach achieves significantly higher accuracy compared to classic LLM-as-a-Judge method
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-10T16:52:40Z)
• 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)<n>In addition to providing reliable evaluation, HREF emphasizes individual task performance and is free from contamination.<n>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)
• 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)
• Style Over Substance: Evaluation Biases for Large Language Models [17.13064447978519]
  This study investigates the behavior of crowd-sourced and expert annotators, as well as large language models (LLMs) Our findings reveal a concerning bias in the evaluation process, as answers with factual errors are rated more favorably than answers that are too short or contained grammatical errors. We propose independently evaluating machine-generated text across multiple dimensions, rather than merging all the evaluation aspects into a single score.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-06T14:42:01Z)
• PRD: Peer Rank and Discussion Improve Large Language Model based Evaluations [10.709365940160685]
  Modern large language models (LLMs) are hard to evaluate and compare automatically.<n>We propose a peer rank (PR) algorithm that takes into account each peer LLM's pairwise preferences of all answer pairs.<n>We find that our approaches achieve higher accuracy and align better with human judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-06T04:05:44Z)
• Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluators [60.27164804083752]
  We find that the quality ranking of candidate responses can be easily hacked by altering their order of appearance in the context. This manipulation allows us to skew the evaluation result, making one model appear considerably superior to the other. We propose a framework with three simple yet effective strategies to mitigate this issue.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-29T07:41:03Z)

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.