(Towards) Scalable Reliable Automated Evaluation with Large Language Models

Traditional benchmarks for LLMs primarily rely on static datasets and objective scoring metrics, which often fail to capture differences in response quality when multiple answers are acceptable. In such settings, correctness alone is insufficient to distinguish between responses that vary in clarity, completeness, and usefulness. This paper introduces a consensus-based evaluation framework that measures relative preference among model-generated responses rather than absolute correctness. Instead of evaluating outputs against a fixed ground truth, we assess how a panel of diverse LLMs ranks anonymized candidate responses to the same prompt. This approach treats aggregate inter-model agreement as a proxy for perceived response quality under blind conditions. We conduct a controlled study using five state-of-the-art LLMs across multiple domains, including programming, general knowledge, safety, logical reasoning, and mathematics. Each model generates responses and independently ranks peer outputs through a structured voting process. Scores are aggregated into a Relative Intelligence Index (RII), representing how frequently a model's responses are preferred by other models. Our findings reveal consistent preference patterns across domains, with certain models more frequently ranked highly by their peers. However, we emphasize that these results reflect inter-model preference alignment rather than objective correctness or human judgment. This framework provides a scalable, model-driven method for comparative evaluation, offering an alternative perspective on response quality in scenarios where multiple valid answers exist. While not directly aligned with human evaluation, prior work suggests that aggregated model preferences can partially correlate with human judgments, motivating this as a proxy signal.

The rapid adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) has spurred interest in automated peer review; however, progress is currently stifled by benchmarks that treat reviewing primarily as a rating prediction task. We argue that the utility of a review lies in its textual justification--its arguments, questions, and critique--rather than a scalar score. To address this, we introduce Beyond Rating, a holistic evaluation framework that assesses AI reviewers across five dimensions: Content Faithfulness, Argumentative Alignment, Focus Consistency, Question Constructiveness, and AI-Likelihood. Notably, we propose a Max-Recall strategy to accommodate valid expert disagreement and introduce a curated dataset of paper with high-confidence reviews, rigorously filtered to remove procedural noise. Extensive experiments demonstrate that while traditional n-gram metrics fail to reflect human preferences, our proposed text-centric metrics--particularly the recall of weakness arguments--correlate strongly with rating accuracy. These findings establish that aligning AI critique focus with human experts is a prerequisite for reliable automated scoring, offering a robust standard for future research.

Rubric-based evaluation is a promising approach for assessing open-ended outputs from LLM-based research agents, particularly in paper reproduction, where direct paper-to-repository comparison is prone to hallucination. However, constructing paper-specific rubrics requires substantial expert effort, limiting the scalability of benchmarks such as PaperBench. In this work, we present, to our knowledge, the first systematic meta-evaluation of LLM-generated rubrics for paper reproduction. We reformulate rubrics into a checklist-style format and evaluate four generation settings across two backbone models. We meta-evaluate generated rubrics intrinsically by semantic similarity and extrinsically by score alignment with ground-truth rubrics. Our results show that the augmented settings substantially improves downstream evaluation alignment, with the strongest setting approaching the human baseline, while intrinsic gains are more modest. Further analyses reveal that LLM-generated rubrics are often overly fine-grained, biased toward high scores, and less adaptive to paper domains, highlighting both the affordances and limitations.