mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

MATEval: A Multi-Agent Discussion Framework for Advancing Open-Ended Text Evaluation

arXiv 2403.19305 ↗First posted 28 Mar 2024cs.CL cs.AIcited by 18

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks

Abstract (arXiv)

Recent advancements in generative Large Language Models(LLMs) have been remarkable, however, the quality of the text generated by these models often reveals persistent issues. Evaluating the quality of text generated by these models, especially in open-ended text, has consistently presented a significant challenge. Addressing this, recent work has explored the possibility of using LLMs as evaluators. While using a single LLM as an evaluation agent shows potential, it is filled with significant uncertainty and instability. To address these issues, we propose the MATEval: A "Multi-Agent Text Evaluation framework" where all agents are played by LLMs like GPT-4. The MATEval framework emulates human collaborative discussion methods, integrating multiple agents' interactions to evaluate open-ended text. Our framework incorporates self-reflection and Chain-of-Thought (CoT) strategies, along with feedback mechanisms, enhancing the depth and breadth of the evaluation process and guiding discussions towards consensus, while the framework generates comprehensive evaluation reports, including error localization, error types and scoring. Experimental results show that our framework outperforms existing open-ended text evaluation methods and achieves the highest correlation with human evaluation, which confirms the effectiveness and advancement of our framework in addressing the uncertainties and instabilities in evaluating LLMs-generated text. Furthermore, our framework significantly improves the efficiency of text evaluation and model iteration in industrial scenarios.

Key facts. Cited by 18 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in General LLM agent frameworks and benchmarks, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 13 of its 18 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Mar 2024.

Builds on

13 of 18 references.

Closest ancestors · 1

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2023ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debate14 Aug

Other references · 12

  1. 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,302
  2. 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,462
  3. 2023Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedbackcited by 3,317
  4. 2023G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignmentcited by 2,205
  5. 2023Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluatorscited by 1,050
  6. 2023Is ChatGPT a Good NLG Evaluator? A Preliminary Studycited by 420
  7. 2023GPTScore: Evaluate as You Desirecited by 357
  8. 2016How NOT To Evaluate Your Dialogue System: An Empirical Study of Unsupervised Evaluation Metrics for Dialogue Response Generationcited by 356
  9. 2021OpenMEVA: A Benchmark for Evaluating Open-ended Story Generation Metricscited by 61
  10. 2020UNION: An Unreferenced Metric for Evaluating Open-ended Story Generationcited by 60
  11. 2019Better Automatic Evaluation of Open-Domain Dialogue Systems with Contextualized Embeddingscited by 52
  12. 2021LOT: A Story-Centric Benchmark for Evaluating Chinese Long Text Understanding and Generationcited by 24

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 4; 2025: 7; 2026: 7.

18 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2024From Generation to Judgment: Opportunities and Challenges of LLM-as-a-judgecited by 480
  2. 2025Toward Generalizable Evaluation in the LLM Era: A Survey Beyond Benchmarkscited by 26
  3. 2025Multi-Agent-as-Judge: Aligning LLM-Agent-Based Automated Evaluation with Multi-Dimensional Human Evaluationcited by 26
  4. 2024What Makes a Good Story and How Can We Measure It? A Comprehensive Survey of Story Evaluationcited by 17
  5. 2025Leveraging LLMs as Meta-Judges: A Multi-Agent Framework for Evaluating LLM Judgmentscited by 16
  6. 2026Agent-as-a-Judgecited by 15
  7. 2026PhGPO: Pheromone-Guided Policy Optimization for Long-Horizon Tool Planningcited by 6
  8. 2025SeriesBench: A Benchmark for Narrative-Driven Drama Series Understandingcited by 5
  9. 2024Is my Meeting Summary Good? Estimating Quality with a Multi-LLM Evaluatorcited by 4
  10. 2025Harnessing Diverse Perspectives: A Multi-Agent Framework for Enhanced Error Detection in Knowledge Graphscited by 4
  11. 2026Phase-Aware Mixture of Experts for Agentic Reinforcement Learningcited by 4
  12. 2025HiMATE: A Hierarchical Multi-Agent Framework for Machine Translation Evaluationcited by 3
6 more
  1. 2026Multi-Agent Debate Strategies: Survey, Taxonomy, and Challengescited by 3
  2. 2026Large Language Model-Powered Evolutionary Code Optimization on a Phylogenetic Treecited by 2
  3. 2024SAGEval: The frontiers of Satisfactory Agent based NLG Evaluation for reference-free open-ended textcited by 1
  4. 2025C3TG: Conflict-aware, Composite, and Collaborative Controlled Text Generationcited by 1
  5. 2026Beyond Consensus: Downward Bias and Role Asymmetry in Multi-Agent LLM Judges for Subjective Evaluationcited by 0
  6. 2026DocuTeam: Mixed-Initiative Multi-Agent Discussions around Evolving Documentscited by 0

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2024Can Large Language Models be Trusted for Evaluation? Scalable Meta-Evaluation of LLMs as Evaluators via Agent Debate
  2. 2025Evaluating LLM-based Agents for Multi-Turn Conversations: A Survey
  3. 2023Towards Reasoning in Large Language Models via Multi-Agent Peer Review Collaboration
  4. 2026CollabEval: Enhancing LLM-as-a-Judge via Multi-Agent Collaboration
  5. 2025LLM Agents at the Roundtable: A Multi-Perspective and Dialectical Reasoning Framework for Essay Scoring
  6. 2025Multi-Agent LLM Judge: automatic personalized LLM judge design for evaluating natural language generation applications
  7. 2024DEBATE: Devil's Advocate-Based Assessment and Text Evaluation
  8. 2026Conversation for Non-verifiable Learning: Self-Evolving LLMs through Meta-Evaluation