CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 105Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesSpeech and dialogue systems

ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debate

Open access
Chan, Chi-Min, Chen, Weize, Su, Yusheng, Yu, Jianxuan, Xue, Wei, Zhang, Shanghang, Fu, Jie, Liu, Zhiyuan·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2308.07201arXiv 2308.07201
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

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.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

ChatEval is a multi-agent debate framework for LLM-based text evaluation, using multiple LLM agents with diverse role prompts and different communication strategies to discuss and judge generated responses. Experiments on FairEval and Topical-Chat show improved alignment with human assessment over single-agent evaluation and several baselines.

Key findings

  • On FairEval open-ended question answering, multi-agent ChatEval improved accuracy over single-agent evaluation by 6.2% for ChatGPT (53.8% → 60.0%) and 2.5% for GPT-4 (61.3% → 63.8%), surpassing FairEval’s best MEC+BPC results (ChatGPT 58.7%, GPT-4 62.5%). Human annotators averaged 71.7% accuracy, with individual annotators at 68.8%, 76.3%, and 70.0%.
  • On Topical-Chat dialogue response generation, ChatEval with GPT-4 improved average Spearman and Kendall-Tau correlation by 0.096 (16.3%) and 0.057 (10.0%), respectively, over G-EVAL-4.
  • Diverse role prompts were essential: with the same role prompt, multi-agent ChatGPT scored 53.8% accuracy and 0.25 Kappa, versus 60.0% and 0.33 with diverse role prompts; the same-role condition did not effectively improve over single-agent (53.8%, 0.27).
  • For ChatGPT on FairEval, one-by-one communication was strongest among tested strategies (60.0% accuracy, 0.33 Kappa), compared with simultaneous-talk (55.0%, 0.28) and simultaneous-talk-with-summarizer (55.0%, 0.27). Accuracy peaked at 62.5% with 3–4 roles before declining at 5 roles, while increasing discussion turns showed no significant upward trend.

Methods

  • ChatEval treats each LLM as a debater agent with a distinct role/persona and a shared prompt template; agents autonomously exchange responses over discussion turns without human intervention. Final judgments use majority vote for comparison formats or average score for direct-score formats. Three communication strategies are tested: one-by-one, simultaneous-talk, and simultaneous-talk-with-summarizer.
  • Evaluated on two benchmarks: FairEval for open-ended question answering (80 questions, human annotations from Wu et al. 2023, three annotators comparing Vicuna-13B and ChatGPT) and Topical-Chat for dialogue response generation (60 dialogue contexts, responses from 6 systems, human annotations from Mehri & Eskenazi 2020; four dimensions: naturalness, coherence, engagingness, groundedness).
  • Uses OpenAI GPT-family models GPT-4 and ChatGPT (GPT-3.5-turbo) with temperature 0, in homogeneous groups. Default configuration is one-by-one communication, 2 agents, and 2 discussion turns, with position calibration in both single-agent and multi-agent settings. Metrics are Accuracy and Kappa for FairEval, and turn-level Spearman and Kendall-Tau correlations for Topical-Chat.

Limitations

  • The paper states that it focuses on homogeneous groups of LLMs, with heterogeneous groups left for future research; it also notes that communication strategies other than one-by-one did not perform as robustly and require further exploration and optimization.
  • The paper states that continual discussion often leads to stagnation or even degradation of performance, possibly due to ever-increasing context length.
  • Evident from the text: evaluation is limited to two benchmarks and GPT-family models, and the paper does not report testing with non-GPT or heterogeneous model groups.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2308.07201

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

8 of 13 cited sources checked · 6 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    Automatic n-gram metrics such as ROUGE, BLEU, and METEOR show relatively weak correlation with human judgments, especially for open-ended generation or tasks needing domain expertise.

    “However, these methods have been shown to exhibit a relatively weak correlation with human judgments, particularly in the context of tasks involving open-ended generation or requiring domain-specific expertise (Novikova et al., 2017).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Novikova et al., 2017 source

      Section 7.1 reports that no metric achieved even a moderate utterance-level correlation with human ratings across the datasets and systems studied; its table includes BLEU, ROUGE, and METEOR. The paper does not establish that correlations are especially weak for open-ended generation or tasks requiring domain-specific expertise. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.87)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    Traditional human annotation of texts is overly demanding in time and cost.

    “Traditional methodologies predominantly rely on human annotation of texts (Callison-Burch, 2009), an approach considered overly demanding in terms of time and cost.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Callison-Burch, 2009 source

      The Abstract and Introduction say manual evaluation of machine translation is generally thought to be time-consuming and expensive. But the Introduction says researchers routinely use automatic metrics rather than predominantly relying on human annotation, and the paper demonstrates that manual evaluation can be cheaper and faster than commonly thought. Its findings concern translation evaluation, not text annotation generally. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    Multiple LLMs can improve one another through debate and cooperation.

    “While a single powerful LLM can already tackle various missions, emerging studies suggest that multiple LLMs can further improve one another through debate and cooperation (Li et al., 2023a;Liang et al., 2023).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Li et al., 2023a

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Liang et al., 2023 source
  • Premisecitation

    A single evaluator perspective can make human evaluation biased and unstable.

    “In the human evaluation processes, relying on a single perspective can introduce bias and instability in the results (Karpinska et al., 2021).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Karpinska et al., 2021 source
  • Findingown data

    On Topical-Chat, ChatGPT with a single agent achieved an average Spearman correlation of 0.544 and Kendall-Tau of 0.503.

    “ChatGPT(SA) 0.474 0.421 0.527 0.482 0.599 0.549 0.576 0.558 0.544 0.503”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 24
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 6
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 5

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Longer debates tend to stop improving results and can even make them worse.

    “This observation aligns with the findings in Liang et al. (2023); Du et al. (2023), highlighting a consistent phenomenon where continual discussion often leads to stagnation or even degradation of performance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Liang et al., 2023 source
    • cites Du et al., 2023

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Evaluating text generated by language models or humans is a long-standing difficult task that demands substantial time and labor.

    “Text evaluation has historically posed significant challenges, often demanding substantial labor and time cost.”
    • Also stated in: § 1 INTRODUCTION · plain
      “Evaluating the quality of text generated by language models or written by humans has long been a challenging endeavor, consistently garnering substantial attention (Celikyilmaz et al., 2020).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Celikyilmaz et al., 2020 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Studies on LLM-as-a-judge indicate that LLMs can imitate human behavior and give evaluations matching human judgments, providing a scalable and transparent alternative to human evaluation.

    “Findings from these researches indicate that LLM can mimic human behavior and provide evaluations that correspond with human judgments, revealing a potentially scalable and transparent alternative to costly and laborious human evaluations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Liu et al., 2023b

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Zheng et al., 2023 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Human evaluation guidelines commonly recommend that several annotators work together.

    “Recognizing this, best practices often involve multiple human annotators collaborating in the evaluation (Van Der Lee et al., 2019).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Van Der Lee et al., 2019 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For GPT-4 on dialogue response generation, ChatEval improves average Spearman and Kendall-Tau correlation over G-EVAL by 0.096 (16.3%) and 0.057 (10.0%), respectively.

    “Specifically, ChatEval improves the average Spearman and Kendall-Tau correlation by 0.096 (16.3%) and 0.057 (10.0%) respectively.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The human annotation results taken from prior benchmarks are a suitable reference standard for human preference.

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    On FairEval, human annotators achieved accuracy between 68.8% and 76.3% and kappa between 0.5 and 0.62.

    “Annotator1 | - | 68.8 | 0.5”
    • Also stated in: § Automatic NLG evaluation · plain
      “Annotator2 | - | 76.3 | 0.62”
    • Also stated in: § Automatic NLG evaluation · plain
      “Annotator3 | - | 70 | 0.5”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    On FairEval, ChatGPT multi-agent with the same role prompt achieved 53.8% accuracy and a kappa of 0.25.

    “ChatGPT | Multi-Agent (Same Role Prompt) | 53.8 | 0.25”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    In the qualitative example, ChatEval's debate produced the same evaluation as human annotation, judging both responses to be of equal quality.

    “At the end of the debate, we finally extract the evaluation results that both responses are of the same quality which is identical to human annotation results.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The human annotation results taken from prior benchmarks are a suitable reference standard for human preference.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    On FairEval, GPT-4 with a single agent achieved 61.3% accuracy and a kappa of 0.36.

    “GPT-4 | Single-Agent 61.3 | 0.36”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    On FairEval, ChatGPT with a single agent achieved 53.8% accuracy and a kappa of 0.27.

    “ChatGPT | Single-Agent 53.8 | 0.27”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    On FairEval, GPT-4 with multi-agent debate achieved 63.8% accuracy and a kappa of 0.40.

    “GPT-4 | Multi-Agent | 63.8 | 0.40”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    On the FairEval dataset, increasing the number of roles is associated with growth in accuracy and Kappa, with accuracy peaking at 62.5% at role numbers 3 and 4.

    “As the role number increases, there is a corresponding growth in Acc. and Kap.This pattern reaches an apex with an Acc. of 62.5% at role numbers 3 and 4 before declining at role number 5.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    On the FairEval benchmark, ChatGPT with multi-agent debate achieved 60.0% accuracy and a kappa of 0.33.

    “ChatGPT | Multi-Agent | 60.0 | 0.33”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The simultaneous-talk and simultaneous-talk-with-summarizer strategies still exceed the naive single-agent method.

    “Although the other two communication strategies did not perform as robustly as the one-by-one strategy, it is noteworthy that they still exceeded the performance of the naive single-agent method.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    On open-ended question answering, ChatEval improves accuracy over single-agent evaluation by 6.2% for ChatGPT and 2.5% for GPT-4.

    “Specifically, the multi-agent-based method improves the accuracy by 6.2% for ChatGPT and 2.5% for GPT-4;”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The human annotation results taken from prior benchmarks are a suitable reference standard for human preference.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    On two benchmark tasks, ChatEval achieves higher accuracy and correlation with human assessment than single-agent evaluation methods.

    “Our experiments on two benchmark tasks illustrate that ChatEval delivers superior accuracy and correlation in alignment with human assessment.”
    • Also stated in: § 1 INTRODUCTION · plain
      “We propose a multi-agent-based framework called ChatEval that aligns better with human preferences compared with single-agent-based approaches as depicted in Figure 1.”
    • Also stated in: § 3.4 RESULTS FOR OPEN-ENDED QUESTION ANSWERS · plain
      “ChatEval can enhance the performance of the evaluation process, achieving higher alignment with human preference compared with single-agent evaluation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The human annotation results taken from prior benchmarks are a suitable reference standard for human preference.

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    For ChatGPT on the FairEval benchmark, the one-by-one communication strategy is more effective than simultaneous-talk and simultaneous-talk-with-summarizer.

    “we can find that the one-by-one communication strategy is more effective than other strategies for ChatGPT setting.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    On FairEval, ChatGPT multi-agent with diverse role prompts achieved 60% accuracy and a kappa of 0.33.

    “ChatGPT | Multi-Agent (Diverse Role Prompt) 60 | 0.33”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    On FairEval, the simultaneous-talk communication strategy achieved 55% accuracy and a kappa of 0.28.

    “ChatGPT | Simultaneous-Talk | 55 | 0.28”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    On FairEval, the simultaneous-talk-with-summarizer communication strategy achieved 55% accuracy and a kappa of 0.27.

    “ChatGPT | Simultaneous-Talk-with-Summarizer 55 | 0.27”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    On dialogue response generation, ChatEval improves performance over single-agent evaluation for both ChatGPT and GPT-4.

    “Additionally, compared with the single-agent method, ChatEval amplifies the performance both for ChatGPT and GPT-4, showing the effectiveness of our method which is aligned with the results in Section 3.4.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The human annotation results taken from prior benchmarks are a suitable reference standard for human preference.

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    Accuracy declines at role number 5 while Kappa continues to rise between role numbers 3 and 4.

    “Despite this decline in accuracy, Kap.continues to ascend between role numbers 3 and 4, underscoring the effectiveness of incorporating diverse roles within ChatEval.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    On FairEval, the one-by-one communication strategy achieved 60% accuracy and a kappa of 0.33.

    “ChatGPT | One-by-One | 60 | 0.33”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    On FairEval, the one-by-one communication strategy outperforms simultaneous-talk and simultaneous-talk-with-summarizer.

    “ChatGPT | One-by-One | 60 | 0.33”
    • Also stated in: § Automatic NLG evaluation · plain
      “ChatGPT | Simultaneous-Talk | 55 | 0.28”
    • Also stated in: § Automatic NLG evaluation · plain
      “ChatGPT | Simultaneous-Talk-with-Summarizer 55 | 0.27”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Position calibration techniques were applied in both single-agent and multi-agent settings.

    “employ position calibration techniques in both single-agent and multi-agent settings.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Interpretationown data

    ChatEval provides a reliable, human-mimicking evaluation process that captures nuances often missed by single viewpoints.

    “ChatEval transcends mere textual scoring, offering a humanmimicking evaluation process for reliable assessments.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The human annotation results taken from prior benchmarks are a suitable reference standard for human preference.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    G-EVAL outperforms previous traditional metrics, indicating that LLM-based evaluators are effective and reliable for dialogue response generation.

    “The results show that their method outperforms previous traditional metrics depicting the fact that the LLM-based evaluator is effective and reliable for evaluating the dialogue response generation task.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Liu et al., 2023b

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The study set the LLM temperature to 0 to ensure reproducibility.

    “set the temperature to 0 to ensure reproducibility.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    ChatEval improves text-quality evaluation and aligns more closely with human preferences.

    “we present evidence that ChatEval contributes to improving the evaluation performance concerning text quality, aligning more closely with human preferences.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    The single-agent baseline used the same prompt template as the multi-agent debate settings except for ignoring some slots.

    “We use the same prompt template as our multi-agent debate settings in single-agent baseline except that we ignore some slot.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The paper's qualitative review of the debate process supports the claim that ChatEval can perform comprehensive evaluations similar to human judgment, indicating the framework is reliable and effective.

    “Our qualitative analysis of the discussion process conveys insightful intuitions about how a text is evaluated by ChatEval and substantiates our approach's ability to support comprehensive evaluations akin to human judgment, thereby demonstrating the reliability and efficacy of our framework.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
31 of 31

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The human annotation results taken from prior benchmarks are a suitable reference standard for human preference.

    “We then take the human annotation results from Wu et al. (2023) to conduct the experiments in this paper.”
    “We then take the human annotation results from Mehri & Eskenazi (2020) where they carry out the annotations on 60 dialogue contexts with each response generated by 6 different systems.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Majority voting among annotators and averaging scores yield an impartial and balanced evaluation.

    “This methodological approach ensures the impartiality and balance of our evaluation process.”
2 of 2

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The multi-agent framework significantly enhances the capabilities of LLMs for managing complex tasks, including solving mathematical problems and performing retrieval-augmented code generation.

    “This technique significantly enhances the capabilities of LLMs for managing complex tasks, including solving mathematical problems and performing retrieval-augmented code generation11–14.”

    From Enhancing diagnostic capability with multi-agents conversational large language models (2025) · cites this paper as [13]

    The Introduction says multi-agent collaboration can improve completion of arduous tasks, and the Automatic NLG evaluation section reports better results on arithmetic problems. Our copy does not support the retrieval-augmented code-generation example; ChatEval’s own experiments concern evaluation of generated responses, not that task. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Evaluating multi-agent collaboration in LLM-based systems requires different methodologies compared to traditional reinforcement learning-driven coordination.

    “Evaluating multi-agent collaboration in LLM-based systems requires different methodologies compared to traditional reinforcement learning-driven coordination [7, 48, 89].”

    From Evaluation and Benchmarking of LLM Agents: A Survey (2025) · cites this paper as [7]

    The Abstract and §3.3 Baselines describe evaluating ChatEval against single-agent LLM evaluators and text-evaluation metrics. Our copy does not address whether evaluating LLM multi-agent collaboration requires different methods from reinforcement-learning-driven coordination; searches for that comparison found no supporting passage. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • One-by-one algorithm does not share responses with the first agent

    Minor

    The one-by-one algorithm updates chat histories only for agents numbered m ≥ n, and only when m > 1. Agent 1 therefore never receives another agent's response, contrary to the description that each agent receives responses from the others.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Satanjeev Banerjee and Alon Lavie. Meteor: An automatic metric for mt evaluation with improved correlation with human judgments. In Proceedings of the acl workshop on intrinsic and extrinsic evaluation measures for machine translation and/or summarization, pp. 65-72, 2005.
  2. Chin-Yew Lin. Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In Text summarization branches out, pp. 74-81, 2004.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Chan, C.-M., Chen, W., Su, Y., Yu, J., Xue, W., Zhang, S., Fu, J., & Liu, Z.
Affiliations
  • Tsinghua University (CN)
  • Peking University (CN)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2308.07201
arXiv
2308.07201
OpenAlex
W4385849309
Cited by
55
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 5 · 2019: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Rare & Special e-Zone (The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
Keywords
LLM-based evaluation, multi-agent debate, text evaluation, large language models, human evaluation, multi-agent systems, natural language generation, open-ended questions

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-07.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-07.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review