In this paper, we provide an overview of the NTCIR-18 Automatic Evaluation of LLMs (AEOLLM) task. As large language models (LLMs) grow popular in both academia and industry, how to effectively evaluate the capacity of LLMs becomes an increasingly critical but still challenging issue. Existing methods can be divided into two types: manual evaluation, which is expensive, and automatic evaluation, which faces many limitations including task format (the majority belong to multiple-choice questions) and evaluation criteria (occupied by reference-based metrics). To advance the innovation of automatic evaluation, we propose the AEOLLM task which focuses on generative tasks and encourages reference-free methods. Besides, we set up diverse subtasks such as dialogue generation, text expansion, summary generation and non-factoid question answering to comprehensively test different methods. This year, we received 48 runs from 4 teams in total. This paper will describe the background of the task, the data set, the evaluation measures and the evaluation results, respectively.

The use of large language models (LLMs) as automated evaluation tools to assess the quality of generated natural language, known as LLMs-as-Judges, has demonstrated promising capabilities and is rapidly gaining widespread attention. However, when applied to pairwise comparisons of candidate responses, LLM-based evaluators often exhibit selection bias. Specifically, their judgments may become inconsistent when the option positions or ID tokens are swapped, compromising the effectiveness and fairness of the evaluation result. To address this challenge, we introduce CalibraEval, a novel label-free method for mitigating selection bias during inference. Specifically, CalibraEval reformulates debiasing as an optimization task aimed at adjusting observed prediction distributions to align with unbiased prediction distributions. To solve this optimization problem, we propose a non-parametric order-preserving algorithm (NOA). This algorithm leverages the partial order relationships between model prediction distributions, thereby eliminating the need for explicit labels and precise mathematical function modeling.Empirical evaluations of LLMs in multiple representative benchmarks demonstrate that CalibraEval effectively mitigates selection bias and improves performance compared to existing debiasing methods. This work marks a step toward building more robust and unbiased automated evaluation frameworks, paving the way for improved reliability in AI-driven assessments

With the rapid development of large language models (LLMs), how to efficiently evaluate them has become an important research question. Existing evaluation methods often suffer from high costs, limited test formats, the need of human references, and systematic evaluation biases. To address these limitations, our study introduces the Auto-PRE, an automatic LLM evaluation framework based on peer review. In contrast to previous studies that rely on human annotations, Auto-PRE selects evaluator LLMs automatically based on their inherent traits including consistency, self-confidence, and pertinence. We conduct extensive experiments on three tasks: summary generation, non-factoid question-answering, and dialogue generation. Experimental results indicate our Auto-PRE achieves state-of-the-art performance at a lower cost. Moreover, our study highlights the impact of prompt strategies and evaluation formats on evaluation performance, offering guidance for method optimization in the future.

The impressive performance of large language models (LLMs) has attracted considerable attention from the academic and industrial communities. Besides how to construct and train LLMs, how to effectively evaluate and compare the capacity of LLMs has also been well recognized as an important yet difficult problem. Existing paradigms rely on either human annotators or model-based evaluators to evaluate the performance of LLMs on different tasks. However, these paradigms often suffer from high cost, low generalizability, and inherited biases in practice, which make them incapable of supporting the sustainable development of LLMs in long term. In order to address these issues, inspired by the peer review systems widely used in academic publication process, we propose a novel framework that can automatically evaluate LLMs through a peer-review process. Specifically, for the evaluation of a specific task, we first construct a small qualification exam to select "reviewers" from a couple of powerful LLMs. Then, to actually evaluate the "submissions" written by different candidate LLMs, i.e., the evaluatees, we use the reviewer LLMs to rate or compare the submissions. The final ranking of evaluatee LLMs is generated based on the results provided by all reviewers. We conducted extensive experiments on text summarization tasks with eleven LLMs including GPT-4. The results demonstrate the existence of biasness when evaluating using a single LLM. Also, our PRE model outperforms all the baselines, illustrating the effectiveness of the peer review mechanism.