mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

The Battle of LLMs: A Comparative Study in Conversational QA Tasks

arXiv 2405.18344 ↗First posted 28 May 2024cs.CL cs.AIcited by 5

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models have gained considerable interest for their impressive performance on various tasks. Within this domain, ChatGPT and GPT-4, developed by OpenAI, and the Gemini, developed by Google, have emerged as particularly popular among early adopters. Additionally, Mixtral by Mistral AI and Claude by Anthropic are newly released, further expanding the landscape of advanced language models. These models are viewed as disruptive technologies with applications spanning customer service, education, healthcare, and finance. More recently, Mistral has entered the scene, captivating users with its unique ability to generate creative content. Understanding the perspectives of these users is crucial, as they can offer valuable insights into the potential strengths, weaknesses, and overall success or failure of these technologies in various domains. This research delves into the responses generated by ChatGPT, GPT-4, Gemini, Mixtral and Claude across different Conversational QA corpora. Evaluation scores were meticulously computed and subsequently compared to ascertain the overall performance of these models. Our study pinpointed instances where these models provided inaccurate answers to questions, offering insights into potential areas where they might be susceptible to errors. In essence, this research provides a comprehensive comparison and evaluation of these state of-the-art language models, shedding light on their capabilities while also highlighting potential areas for improvement

Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 40 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 May 2024.

Builds on

18 of 40 references.

References · 18

  1. 2017Learning to Compare: Relation Network for Few-Shot Learningcited by 1,139
  2. 2023A Multitask, Multilingual, Multimodal Evaluation of ChatGPT on Reasoning, Hallucination, and Interactivitycited by 888
  3. 2021BARTScore: Evaluating Generated Text as Text Generationcited by 719
  4. 2018CoQA: A Conversational Question Answering Challengecited by 674
  5. 2023Is ChatGPT a General-Purpose Natural Language Processing Task Solver?cited by 486
  6. 2023How Close is ChatGPT to Human Experts? Comparison Corpus, Evaluation, and Detectioncited by 472
  7. 2023The Troubling Emergence of Hallucination in Large Language Models -- An Extensive Definition, Quantification, and Prescriptive Remediationscited by 130
  8. 2023Regulating ChatGPT and other Large Generative AI Modelscited by 102
  9. 2022ChatGPT Makes Medicine Easy to Swallow: An Exploratory Case Study on Simplified Radiology Reportscited by 100
  10. 2022ChatGPT: The End of Online Exam Integrity?cited by 88
  11. 2023ChatGPT is not all you need. A State of the Art Review of large Generative AI modelscited by 85
  12. 2023Can ChatGPT Assess Human Personalities? A General Evaluation Frameworkcited by 69
6 more
  1. 2021DialFact: A Benchmark for Fact-Checking in Dialoguecited by 62
  2. 2023Will ChatGPT get you caught? Rethinking of Plagiarism Detectioncited by 41
  3. 2021FaVIQ: FAct Verification from Information-seeking Questionscited by 36
  4. 2022"I think this is the most disruptive technology": Exploring Sentiments of ChatGPT Early Adopters using Twitter Datacited by 32
  5. 2023Towards Human-Bot Collaborative Software Architecting with ChatGPTcited by 31
  6. 2023UZH_CLyp at SemEval-2023 Task 9: Head-First Fine-Tuning and ChatGPT Data Generation for Cross-Lingual Learning in Tweet Intimacy Predictioncited by 8

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2025: 5.

5 papers.