A Consensus-Based Framework for Relative Preference Evaluation of Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.21632v1
• Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2026 08:59:19 GMT
• Title: A Consensus-Based Framework for Relative Preference Evaluation of Large Language Models
• Abstract summary: This paper introduces a consensus-based evaluation framework that measures relative preference among model-generated responses rather than absolute correctness.<n>We conduct a controlled study using five state-of-the-art LLMs across multiple domains, including programming, general knowledge, safety, logical reasoning, and mathematics.<n>Scores are aggregated into a Relative Intelligence Index (RII), representing how frequently a model's responses are preferred by other models.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Traditional benchmarks for LLMs primarily rely on static datasets and objective scoring metrics, which often fail to capture differences in response quality when multiple answers are acceptable. In such settings, correctness alone is insufficient to distinguish between responses that vary in clarity, completeness, and usefulness. This paper introduces a consensus-based evaluation framework that measures relative preference among model-generated responses rather than absolute correctness. Instead of evaluating outputs against a fixed ground truth, we assess how a panel of diverse LLMs ranks anonymized candidate responses to the same prompt. This approach treats aggregate inter-model agreement as a proxy for perceived response quality under blind conditions. We conduct a controlled study using five state-of-the-art LLMs across multiple domains, including programming, general knowledge, safety, logical reasoning, and mathematics. Each model generates responses and independently ranks peer outputs through a structured voting process. Scores are aggregated into a Relative Intelligence Index (RII), representing how frequently a model's responses are preferred by other models. Our findings reveal consistent preference patterns across domains, with certain models more frequently ranked highly by their peers. However, we emphasize that these results reflect inter-model preference alignment rather than objective correctness or human judgment. This framework provides a scalable, model-driven method for comparative evaluation, offering an alternative perspective on response quality in scenarios where multiple valid answers exist. While not directly aligned with human evaluation, prior work suggests that aggregated model preferences can partially correlate with human judgments, motivating this as a proxy signal.

Related papers

• DualEval: Joint Model-Item Calibration for Unified LLM Evaluation [67.99119926012686]
  DualEval is a latent model-item calibration framework that represents models and evaluation items in a shared space.<n>We apply DualEval across four domains: coding, math, miscellaneous domain-knowledge tasks, and generic everyday user queries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-24T22:40:46Z)
• JudgeBoard: Benchmarking and Enhancing Small Language Models for Reasoning Evaluation [13.831735556002426]
  Small language models (SLMs) have shown promise on various reasoning tasks.<n>Their ability to judge the correctness of answers remains unclear compared to large language models (LLMs)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-20T01:14:39Z)
• VAL-Bench: Measuring Value Alignment in Language Models [10.745372809345412]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for tasks where outputs shape human decisions.<n>Existing benchmarks mostly track refusals or predefined safety violations but do not reveal whether a model upholds a coherent value system.<n>We introduce the Value ALignment Benchmark (VAL-Bench), which evaluates whether models maintain a stable value stance across paired that frame opposing sides of public debates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-06T23:55:48Z)
• 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)
• Skewed Score: A statistical framework to assess autograders [2.9645858732618238]
  "LLM-as-a-judge", or autograders, offer a scalable alternative to human evaluation.<n>They have shown mixed reliability and may exhibit systematic biases.<n>We propose a statistical framework that enables researchers to simultaneously assess their autograders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-04T18:45:10Z)
• Pairwise or Pointwise? Evaluating Feedback Protocols for Bias in LLM-Based Evaluation [57.380464382910375]
  We show that the choice of feedback protocol for evaluation can significantly affect evaluation reliability and induce systematic biases.<n>We find that generator models can flip preferences by embedding distractor features.<n>We offer recommendations for choosing feedback protocols based on dataset characteristics and evaluation objectives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-20T19:05:59Z)
• Meta-Evaluating Local LLMs: Rethinking Performance Metrics for Serious Games [3.725822359130832]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being explored as evaluators in serious games.<n>This study investigates the reliability of five small-scale LLMs when assessing player responses in textitEn-join, a game that simulates decision-making within energy communities.<n>Our results highlight the strengths and limitations of each model, revealing trade-offs between sensitivity, specificity, and overall performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-13T10:46:13Z)
• Right Answer, Wrong Score: Uncovering the Inconsistencies of LLM Evaluation in Multiple-Choice Question Answering [78.89231943329885]
  Multiple-Choice Question Answering (MCQA) is widely used to evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We show that multiple factors can significantly impact the reported performance of LLMs.<n>We analyze whether existing answer extraction methods are aligned with human judgment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-19T08:45:03Z)
• Diverging Preferences: When do Annotators Disagree and do Models Know? [92.24651142187989]
  We develop a taxonomy of disagreement sources spanning 10 categories across four high-level classes. We find that the majority of disagreements are in opposition with standard reward modeling approaches. We develop methods for identifying diverging preferences to mitigate their influence on evaluation and training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T17:32:22Z)
• Self-Evaluation Improves Selective Generation in Large Language Models [54.003992911447696]
  We reformulate open-ended generation tasks into token-level prediction tasks. We instruct an LLM to self-evaluate its answers. We benchmark a range of scoring methods based on self-evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-14T19:09:22Z)
• 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)

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.