# ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debate

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.07201 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.07201/

## Key facts

- Cited by 742 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 29 of its 49 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 14 Aug 2023.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks](https://mlsanity.com/agents/general-llm-agent-frameworks-and-benchmarks/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 29 of 29)

- [BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.04805/) (2018)
- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.09675/) (2019)
- [Finetuned Language Models Are Zero-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.01652/) (2021)
- [Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.03442/) (2023)
- [G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.16634/) (2023)
- [Improving Factuality and Reasoning in Language Models through Multiagent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14325/) (2023)
- [Multitask Prompted Training Enables Zero-Shot Task Generalization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.08207/) (2021)
- [BLEURT: Learning Robust Metrics for Text Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.04696/) (2020)
- [Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.17926/) (2023)
- [Encouraging Divergent Thinking in Large Language Models through Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.19118/) (2023)
- [Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.01937/) (2023)
- [Is ChatGPT a Good NLG Evaluator? A Preliminary Study](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.04048/) (2023)
- [MoverScore: Text Generation Evaluating with Contextualized Embeddings and Earth Mover Distance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.02622/) (2019)
- [GPTScore: Evaluate as You Desire](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04166/) (2023)
- [PandaLM: An Automatic Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Instruction Tuning Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05087/) (2023)
- [Evaluation of Text Generation: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.14799/) (2020)
- [Towards a Unified Multi-Dimensional Evaluator for Text Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.07197/) (2022)
- [Unleashing the Emergent Cognitive Synergy in Large Language Models: A Task-Solving Agent through Multi-Persona Self-Collaboration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.05300/) (2023)
- [Why We Need New Evaluation Metrics for NLG](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1707.06875/) (2017)
- [USR: An Unsupervised and Reference Free Evaluation Metric for Dialog Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.00456/) (2020)
- [Benchmarking Foundation Models with Language-Model-as-an-Examiner](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.04181/) (2023)
- [RoCo: Dialectic Multi-Robot Collaboration with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.04738/) (2023)
- [Human-like Summarization Evaluation with ChatGPT](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.02554/) (2023)
- [PRD: Peer Rank and Discussion Improve Large Language Model based Evaluations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.02762/) (2023)
- [The Perils of Using Mechanical Turk to Evaluate Open-Ended Text Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.06835/) (2021)
- [Large Language Models are Diverse Role-Players for Summarization Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.15078/) (2023)

## Built on by (most cited first, 30 of 742)

- [A Survey on Large Language Model based Autonomous Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.11432/) (2023)
- [The Rise and Potential of Large Language Model Based Agents: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.07864/) (2023)
- [Large Language Model based Multi-Agents: A Survey of Progress and Challenges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.01680/) (2024)
- [Why Do Multi-Agent LLM Systems Fail?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.13657/) (2025)
- [AgentVerse: Facilitating Multi-Agent Collaboration and Exploring Emergent Behaviors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.10848/) (2023)
- [From Generation to Judgment: Opportunities and Challenges of LLM-as-a-judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.16594/) (2024)
- [LLMs-as-Judges: A Comprehensive Survey on LLM-based Evaluation Methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.05579/) (2024)
- [Prometheus 2: An Open Source Language Model Specialized in Evaluating Other Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.01535/) (2024)
- [Mixture-of-Agents Enhances Large Language Model Capabilities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.04692/) (2024)
- [Multi-Agent Collaboration Mechanisms: A Survey of LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.06322/) (2025)
- [Cognitive Architectures for Language Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.02427/) (2023)
- [JudgeBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLM-based Judges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.12784/) (2024)
- [ReConcile: Round-Table Conference Improves Reasoning via Consensus among Diverse LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.13007/) (2023)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models at Evaluating Instruction Following](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.07641/) (2023)
- [A Dynamic LLM-Powered Agent Network for Task-Oriented Agent Collaboration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.02170/) (2023)
- [The Unlocking Spell on Base LLMs: Rethinking Alignment via In-Context Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.01552/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models Empowered Agent-based Modeling and Simulation: A Survey and Perspectives](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.11970/) (2023)
- [Scaling Large Language Model-based Multi-Agent Collaboration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.07155/) (2024)
- [When Can LLMs Actually Correct Their Own Mistakes? A Critical Survey of Self-Correction of LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.01297/) (2024)
- [Agent-as-a-Judge: Evaluate Agents with Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.10934/) (2024)
- [AutoAgents: A Framework for Automatic Agent Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.17288/) (2023)
- [Two Tales of Persona in LLMs: A Survey of Role-Playing and Personalization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.01171/) (2024)
- [Large Language Model Agent: A Survey on Methodology, Applications and Challenges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.21460/) (2025)
- [Mobile-Agent-v2: Mobile Device Operation Assistant with Effective Navigation via Multi-Agent Collaboration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.01014/) (2024)
- [Which Agent Causes Task Failures and When? On Automated Failure Attribution of LLM Multi-Agent Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.00212/) (2025)
- [Rethinking the Bounds of LLM Reasoning: Are Multi-Agent Discussions the Key?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.18272/) (2024)
- [Agent Smith: A Single Image Can Jailbreak One Million Multimodal LLM Agents Exponentially Fast](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.08567/) (2024)
- [Large Language Models are Inconsistent and Biased Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.01724/) (2024)
- [Evaluation and Benchmarking of LLM Agents: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.21504/) (2025)
- [UFO: A UI-Focused Agent for Windows OS Interaction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.07939/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Text evaluation has historically posed significant challenges, often demanding substantial labor and time cost. With the emergence of large language models (LLMs), researchers have explored LLMs' potential as alternatives for human evaluation. While these single-agent-based approaches show promise, experimental results suggest that further advancements are needed to bridge the gap between their current effectiveness and human-level evaluation quality. Recognizing that best practices of human evaluation processes often involve multiple human annotators collaborating in the evaluation, we resort to a multi-agent debate framework, moving beyond single-agent prompting strategies. The multi-agent-based approach enables a group of LLMs to synergize with an array of intelligent counterparts, harnessing their distinct capabilities and expertise to enhance efficiency and effectiveness in handling intricate tasks. In this paper, we construct a multi-agent referee team called ChatEval to autonomously discuss and evaluate the quality of generated responses from different models on open-ended questions and traditional natural language generation (NLG) tasks. Our analysis shows that ChatEval transcends mere textual scoring, offering a human-mimicking evaluation process for reliable assessments. Our code is available at https://github.com/chanchimin/ChatEval.