Ranking Unraveled: Recipes for LLM Rankings in Head-to-Head AI Combat
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Deciding which large language model (LLM) to use is a complex challenge. Pairwise ranking has emerged as a new method for evaluating human preferences for LLMs. This approach entails humans evaluating pairs of model outputs based on a predefined criterion. By collecting these comparisons, a ranking can be constructed using methods such as Elo. However, applying these algorithms as constructed in the context of LLM evaluation introduces several challenges. In this paper, we explore the effectiveness of ranking systems for head-to-head comparisons of LLMs. We formally define a set of fundamental principles for effective ranking and conduct a series of extensive evaluations on the robustness of several ranking algorithms in the context of LLMs. Our analysis uncovers key insights into the factors that affect ranking accuracy and efficiency, offering guidelines for selecting the most appropriate methods based on specific evaluation contexts and resource constraints.
Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 9 of its 22 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Nov 2024.
Builds on
9 of 22 references.
References · 9
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
- 2018GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Natural Language Understandingcited by 4,899
- 2023QLoRA: Efficient Finetuning of Quantized LLMscited by 3,418
- 2019SuperGLUE: A Stickier Benchmark for General-Purpose Language Understanding Systemscited by 1,729
- 2024Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human Preferencecited by 1,184
- 2023AlpacaFarm: A Simulation Framework for Methods that Learn from Human Feedbackcited by 748
- 2023Evaluating Large Language Models: A Comprehensive Surveycited by 202
- 2023Elo Uncovered: Robustness and Best Practices in Language Model Evaluationcited by 61
- 2021Measuring the Non-Transitivity in Chesscited by 10
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 3; 2026: 4.
8 papers.
- 2024Re-evaluating Automatic LLM System Ranking for Alignment with Human Preferencecited by 16
- 2025Estimating problem difficulty without ground truth using Large Language Model comparisonscited by 4
- 2026A Unified Perturbation Framework for Analyzing Leaderboard Stability and Manipulationcited by 2
- 2025Qomhra: A Bilingual Irish and English Large Language Modelcited by 1
- 2025SLMEval: Entropy-Based Calibration for Human-Aligned Evaluation of Large Language Modelscited by 0
- 2026The Trust Paradox: How CS Researchers Engage LLM Leaderboardscited by 0
- 2026Prompt Perturbation for Reliable LLM Evaluation over Comparison Graphscited by 0
- 2026Big-Big-SycoBench: A Benchmark to Detect Sycophancy Through Model Responses to Valid vs. Invalid Argumentscited by 0
- 2026Big-Big-SycoBench: A Benchmark to Detect Sycophancy Through Model Responses to Valid vs. Invalid Arguments11 Oct 2026
- 2026Prompt Perturbation for Reliable LLM Evaluation over Comparison Graphs16 Jun 2026
- 2026The Trust Paradox: How CS Researchers Engage LLM Leaderboards27 May 2026
- 2026A Unified Perturbation Framework for Analyzing Leaderboard Stability and Manipulation15 May 2026
- 2025Estimating problem difficulty without ground truth using Large Language Model comparisons16 Dec 2025
- 2025Qomhra: A Bilingual Irish and English Large Language Model20 Oct 2025
- 2025SLMEval: Entropy-Based Calibration for Human-Aligned Evaluation of Large Language Models21 May 2025
- 2024Re-evaluating Automatic LLM System Ranking for Alignment with Human Preference31 Dec 2024