Polyrating: A Cost-Effective and Bias-Aware Rating System for LLM Evaluation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Rating-based human evaluation has become an essential tool to accurately evaluate the impressive performance of large language models (LLMs). However, current rating systems suffer from several important limitations: first, they fail to account for biases that significantly influence evaluation results, second, they require large and expensive preference datasets to obtain accurate ratings, and third, they do not facilitate meaningful comparisons of model ratings across different tasks. To address these issues, we introduce Polyrating, an expressive and flexible rating system based on maximum a posteriori estimation that enables a more nuanced and thorough analysis of model performance at lower costs. Polyrating can detect and quantify biases affecting human preferences, ensuring fairer model comparisons. Further, Polyrating can reduce the cost of human evaluations by up to 41% for new models and up to 77% for new tasks by leveraging existing benchmark scores. Lastly, Polyrating enables direct comparisons of ratings across different tasks, providing a comprehensive understanding of an LLMs' strengths, weaknesses, and relative performance across different applications.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 41 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Sep 2024.
Builds on
19 of 41 references.
References · 19
- 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,132
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 9,743
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
- 2020Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understandingcited by 7,768
- 2018Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challengecited by 4,710
- 2024Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human Preferencecited by 1,151
- 2023Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluatorscited by 1,050
- 2024Length-Controlled AlpacaEval: A Simple Way to Debias Automatic Evaluatorscited by 865
- 2024Humans or LLMs as the Judge? A Study on Judgement Biasescited by 314
- 2021All That's 'Human' Is Not Gold: Evaluating Human Evaluation of Generated Textcited by 287
- 2023A Long Way to Go: Investigating Length Correlations in RLHFcited by 285
- 2024WildBench: Benchmarking LLMs with Challenging Tasks from Real Users in the Wildcited by 211
7 more
- 2024A Careful Examination of Large Language Model Performance on Grade School Arithmeticcited by 188
- 2023Human Feedback is not Gold Standardcited by 82
- 2024MixEval: Deriving Wisdom of the Crowd from LLM Benchmark Mixturescited by 73
- 2022TweetNLP: Cutting-Edge Natural Language Processing for Social Mediacited by 71
- 2023Style Over Substance: Evaluation Biases for Large Language Modelscited by 68
- 2024Evading Data Contamination Detection for Language Models is (too) Easycited by 30
- 2023Don't lose the message while paraphrasing: A study on content preserving style transfercited by 25
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 1; 2026: 1.
3 papers.