A deep dive into how different LLMs stack up against each other in head-to-head battles, revealing which ranking system works best
This paper evaluates different ranking systems (Elo, Bradley-Terry, Glicko, Markov Chain) for comparing LLMs through head-to-head battles. It reveals key insights about ranking stability, transitivity, and prediction accuracy across different evaluation scenarios.
-----
https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.14483
🤔 Original Problem:
→ Current LLM evaluation methods using benchmarks like GLUE fail to capture nuanced performance in complex tasks
→ Head-to-head comparisons between models need reliable ranking systems, but existing methods like Elo have limitations
-----
🔧 Solution in this Paper:
→ The paper introduces a systematic framework to evaluate ranking algorithms for LLMs
→ It analyzes four ranking systems: Elo, Bradley-Terry, Glicko, and Markov Chain
→ The study examines two evaluation scenarios: Arena Style (dynamic, uneven matchups) and Controlled Style (balanced matchups)
→ Key properties assessed include transitivity preservation, prediction accuracy, and sensitivity to hyperparameters
-----
💡 Key Insights:
→ Bradley-Terry model preserves transitivity better than other methods
→ Ranking systems perform differently in Arena vs Controlled evaluation styles
→ Hyperparameter sensitivity significantly impacts ranking reliability
-----
📊 Results:
→ Bradley-Terry achieves 77.29% transitivity preservation on Arena dataset
→ Elo shows highest prediction accuracy with 0.90 F1 score
→ Glicko demonstrates most stable performance across different hyperparameters
Share this post