Evaluating large language models (LLMs) is challenging.

Recent work demonstrates that, post-training large language models with open-domain instruction following data have achieved colossal success. Simultaneously, human Chatbot Arena has emerged as one of the most reasonable benchmarks for model evaluation and developmental guidance. However, the processes of manually curating high-quality training data and utilizing online human evaluation platforms are both expensive and limited. To mitigate the manual and temporal costs associated with post-training, this paper introduces a Simulated Chatbot Arena named WizardArena, which is fully based on and powered by open-source LLMs. For evaluation scenario, WizardArena can efficiently predict accurate performance rankings among different models based on offline test set. For training scenario, we simulate arena battles among various state-of-the-art models on a large scale of instruction data, subsequently leveraging the battle results to constantly enhance target model in both the supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning . Experimental results demonstrate that our WizardArena aligns closely with the online human arena rankings, and our models trained on offline extensive battle data exhibit significant performance improvements during SFT, DPO, and PPO stages.

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) is challenging. Traditional ground-truth-based benchmarks fail to capture the comprehensiveness and nuance of real-world queries, while LLM-as-judge benchmarks suffer from grading biases and limited query quantity. Both of them may also become contaminated over time. User-facing evaluation, such as Chatbot Arena, provides reliable signals but is costly and slow. In this work, we propose MixEval, a new paradigm for establishing efficient, gold-standard LLM evaluation by strategically mixing off-the-shelf benchmarks.

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) is challenging.

Recent work demonstrates that, post-training large language models with open-domain instruction following data have achieved colossal success.

We argue that this discrepancy primarily arises due to existing evaluation that only measures LLMs'

In arena-style evaluation of large language models (LLMs), two LLMs respond to a user query, and the user chooses the winning response or deems the "battle" a draw, resulting in an adjustment to the ratings of both models. The prevailing approach for modeling these rating dynamics is to view battles as two-player game matches, as in chess, and apply the Elo rating system and its derivatives. In this paper, we critically examine this paradigm. Specifically, we question whether a draw genuinely means that the two models are equal and hence whether their ratings should be equalized. Instead, we conjecture that draws are more indicative of query difficulty: if the query is too easy, then both models are more likely to succeed equally. On three real-world arena datasets, we show that ignoring rating updates for draws yields a 1-3% relative increase in battle outcome prediction accuracy (which includes draws) for all four rating systems studied. Further analyses suggest that draws occur more for queries rated as very easy and those as highly objective, with risk ratios of 1.37 and 1.35, respectively. We recommend future rating systems to reconsider existing draw semantics and to account for query properties in rating updates.

Some traits making a "good" AI model are hard to describe upfront. For example, should responses be more polite or more casual? Such traits are sometimes summarized as model character or personality. Without a clear objective, conventional benchmarks based on automatic validation struggle to measure such traits. Evaluation methods using human feedback such as Chatbot Arena have emerged as a popular alternative. These methods infer "better" personality and other desirable traits implicitly by ranking multiple model responses relative to each other. Recent issues with model releases highlight limitations of these existing opaque evaluation approaches: a major model was rolled back over sycophantic personality issues, models were observed overfitting to such feedback-based leaderboards. Despite these known issues, limited public tooling exists to explicitly evaluate model personality. We introduce Feedback Forensics: an open-source toolkit to track AI personality changes, both those encouraged by human (or AI) feedback, and those exhibited across AI models trained and evaluated on such feedback. Leveraging AI annotators, our toolkit enables investigating personality via Python API and browser app. We demonstrate the toolkit's usefulness in two steps: (A) first we analyse the personality traits encouraged in popular human feedback datasets including Chatbot Arena, MultiPref and PRISM; and (B) then use our toolkit to analyse how much popular models exhibit such traits. We release (1) our Feedback Forensics toolkit alongside (2) a web app tracking AI personality in popular models and feedback datasets as well as (3) the underlying annotation data at https://github.com/rdnfn/feedback-forensics.

Large language models (LLMs) often generate natural language rationales -- free-form explanations that help improve performance on complex reasoning tasks and enhance interpretability for human users. However, evaluating these rationales remains challenging. While recent work has relied on binary preference judgments from humans or LLM judges, such evaluations are often opaque and coarse-grained, offering limited insight into what makes one rationale better than another. In this work, we rethink preference evaluation for LLM-generated rationales by asking: (1) What attributes define good rationales? (2) Can human preferences be explained by these attributes? (3) Can attribute-based evaluation overcome the limitations of binary comparisons? We identify a set of key rationale attributes from prior literature and assess them using automatic metrics, LLM judgments, and human annotations. We then analyze two standard human preference datasets MT Bench and Chatbot Arena using SHAP to identify which attributes best explain human preference outcomes. Finally, we re-evaluate model-generated rationales using attribute-specific ELO scores, revealing more nuanced model comparisons and insights. Our findings suggest that fine-grained attribute evaluations can better characterize rationale quality and guide future research toward more interpretable and reliable evaluation practices.