Compare without Despair: Reliable Preference Evaluation with Generation Separability
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Human evaluation of generated language through pairwise preference judgments is pervasive. However, under common scenarios, such as when generations from a model pair are very similar, or when stochastic decoding results in large variations in generations, it results in inconsistent preference ratings. We address these challenges by introducing a meta-evaluation measure, separability, which estimates how suitable a test instance is for pairwise preference evaluation. For a candidate test instance, separability samples multiple generations from a pair of models, and measures how distinguishable the two sets of generations are. Our experiments show that instances with high separability values yield more consistent preference ratings from both human- and auto-raters. Further, the distribution of separability allows insights into which test benchmarks are more valuable for comparing models. Finally, we incorporate separability into ELO ratings, accounting for how suitable each test instance might be for reliably ranking LLMs. Overall, separability has implications for consistent, efficient and robust preference evaluation of LLMs with both human- and auto-raters.
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 29 of its 43 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Jul 2024.
Builds on
29 of 43 references.
References · 29
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
- 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,512
- 2023G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignmentcited by 2,276
- 2024Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human Preferencecited by 1,184
- 2023Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluatorscited by 1,085
- 2024Length-Controlled AlpacaEval: A Simple Way to Debias Automatic Evaluatorscited by 897
- 2016Abstractive Text Summarization Using Sequence-to-Sequence RNNs and Beyondcited by 812
- 2023The Flan Collection: Designing Data and Methods for Effective Instruction Tuningcited by 739
- 2024LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generationscited by 686
- 2019SAMSum Corpus: A Human-annotated Dialogue Dataset for Abstractive Summarizationcited by 535
- 2023Benchmarking Large Language Models for News Summarizationcited by 445
- 2022News Summarization and Evaluation in the Era of GPT-3cited by 327
17 more
- 2023Evaluating Large Language Models at Evaluating Instruction Followingcited by 302
- 2019Abductive Commonsense Reasoningcited by 301
- 2024WildBench: Benchmarking LLMs with Challenging Tasks from Real Users in the Wildcited by 218
- 2020Adversarial Filters of Dataset Biasescited by 160
- 2022Repairing the Cracked Foundation: A Survey of Obstacles in Evaluation Practices for Generated Textcited by 155
- 2021On Releasing Annotator-Level Labels and Information in Datasetscited by 126
- 2023Elo Uncovered: Robustness and Best Practices in Language Model Evaluationcited by 61
- 2021Comparing Test Sets with Item Response Theorycited by 57
- 2022Follow the Wisdom of the Crowd: Effective Text Generation via Minimum Bayes Risk Decodingcited by 54
- 2023What Comes Next? Evaluating Uncertainty in Neural Text Generators Against Human Production Variabilitycited by 51
- 2023It's MBR All the Way Down: Modern Generation Techniques Through the Lens of Minimum Bayes Riskcited by 51
- 2022The Authenticity Gap in Human Evaluationcited by 24
- 2022On the Limitations of Dataset Balancing: The Lost Battle Against Spurious Correlationscited by 19
- 2024Label-Efficient Model Selection for Text Generationcited by 19
- 2021BiSECT: Learning to Split and Rephrase Sentences with Bitextscited by 18
- 2023Which Prompts Make The Difference? Data Prioritization For Efficient Human LLM Evaluationcited by 18
- 2024Predictions from language models for multiple-choice tasks are not robust under variation of scoring methodscited by 13
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 2; 2026: 1.
4 papers.
- 2024Can AI writing be salvaged? Mitigating Idiosyncrasies and Improving Human-AI Alignment in the Writing Process through Editscited by 49
- 2026Counting on Consensus: Selecting the Right Inter-annotator Agreement Metric for NLP Annotation and Evaluationcited by 13
- 2025How Reliable is Language Model Micro-Benchmarking?cited by 9
- 2025What's the Difference? Supporting Users in Identifying the Effects of Prompt and Model Changes Through Token Patternscited by 4
- 2026Counting on Consensus: Selecting the Right Inter-annotator Agreement Metric for NLP Annotation and Evaluation6 Mar 2026
- 2025How Reliable is Language Model Micro-Benchmarking?9 Oct 2025
- 2025What's the Difference? Supporting Users in Identifying the Effects of Prompt and Model Changes Through Token Patterns22 Apr 2025
- 2024Can AI writing be salvaged? Mitigating Idiosyncrasies and Improving Human-AI Alignment in the Writing Process through Edits22 Sep 2024
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2024Fairer Preferences Elicit Improved Human-Aligned Large Language Model Judgments
- 2025Rethinking Human Preference Evaluation of LLM Rationales
- 2026A Consensus-Based Framework for Relative Preference Evaluation of Large Language Models
- 2025Flattery, Fluff, and Fog: Diagnosing and Mitigating Idiosyncratic Biases in Preference Models
- 2025On Evaluating LLM Alignment by Evaluating LLMs as Judges
- 2024Aligning with Human Judgement: The Role of Pairwise Preference in Large Language Model Evaluators
- 2024Dissecting Human and LLM Preferences
- 2026DIAL: Position-Debiased LLM Judges with Adaptive Human Preference Calibration