  Text evaluation has historically posed significant challenges, often
demanding substantial labor and time cost. With the emergence of large language
models (LLMs), researchers have explored LLMs' potential as alternatives for
human evaluation. While these single-agent-based approaches show promise,
experimental results suggest that further advancements are needed to bridge the
gap between their current effectiveness and human-level evaluation quality.
Recognizing that best practices of human evaluation processes often involve
multiple human annotators collaborating in the evaluation, we resort to a
multi-agent debate framework, moving beyond single-agent prompting strategies.
The multi-agent-based approach enables a group of LLMs to synergize with an
array of intelligent counterparts, harnessing their distinct capabilities and
expertise to enhance efficiency and effectiveness in handling intricate tasks.
In this paper, we construct a multi-agent referee team called ChatEval to
autonomously discuss and evaluate the quality of generated responses from
different models on open-ended questions and traditional natural language
generation (NLG) tasks. Our analysis shows that ChatEval transcends mere
textual scoring, offering a human-mimicking evaluation process for reliable
assessments. Our code is available at https://github.com/chanchimin/ChatEval.
