IC-682GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 achieve F1 scores of 0.5820 and 0.6180 respectively on pairwise response quality evaluation against human annotations

Yidong Wang, Zhuohao Yu, Wenjin Yao, Zhengran Zeng, Linyi Yang, Cunxiang Wang, Hao Chen, Chaoya Jiang, Rui Xie, Jindong Wang, Xing Xie, Wei Ye, Shikun Zhang, Yue Zhang

SourcePandaLM: An Automatic Evaluation Benchmark for LLM Instruction Tuning Optimization

On a 1k-sample human-annotated test set where three annotators independently labeled which of two LLM responses is better (with IAA > 0.85), GPT-3.5 achieves accuracy 0.6296, precision 0.6195, recall 0.6359, F1 0.5820, and GPT-4 achieves accuracy 0.6647, precision 0.6620, recall 0.6815, F1 0.6180. Both models use a prompt-based approach with response order swapped and conflicting results revised to tie. The test set covers diverse tasks sampled from the Self-Instruct human evaluation dataset.

Evidence
correlational
Key metric
GPT-3.5: accuracy 0.6296, precision 0.6195, recall 0.6359, F1 0.5820; GPT-4: accuracy 0.6647, precision 0.6620, recall 0.6815, F1 0.6180 (1k samples, 3-class win/tie/lose)
Caveat
The evaluation is on a single 1k-sample test set; the paper notes that the core training data for PandaLM is derived from GPT-3.5, which may introduce distributional alignment between GPT-3.5's evaluation style and the test set.
Model
GPT-3.5 / ChatGPT-3.5, GPT-4 / ChatGPT4 / GPT-4 Code Interpreter / GPT-4 Technical Report
Related work
Self-Instruct [context]
Related findings
IC-681, IC-683
Extraction
automatic-extraction