The DOI matches its DataCite record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Challenges in Trustworthy Human Evaluation of Chatbots
Abstract
Open community-driven platforms like Chatbot Arena that collect user preference data from site visitors have gained a reputation as one of the most trustworthy publicly available benchmarks for LLM performance. While now standard, it is tricky to implement effective guardrails to collect high-quality annotations from humans. In this paper, we demonstrate that three sources of bad annotations, both malicious and otherwise, can corrupt the reliability of open leaderboard rankings. In particular, we show that only 10\% of poor quality votes by apathetic (site visitors not appropriately incentivized to give correct votes) or adversarial (bad actors seeking to inflate the ranking of a target model) annotators can change the rankings of models by up to 5 places on the leaderboard. Finally, we discuss open challenges in ensuring high-quality human annotations.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
In the citing paper
“Zhao et al. (2024); Min et al. (2025) suggest that Chatbot Arena rankings can be artificially inflated through various adversarial voting strategies.”
From The Leaderboard Illusion (2025) · cites this paper as Zhao et al., 2024
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
LongEval: Guidelines for Human Evaluation of Faithfulness in Long-form Summarization
Krishna, K., Bransom, E., Kuehl, B., Iyyer, M., Dasigi, P., Cohan, A., & Lo, K. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2301.13298 · Cited by 3 · cited 3×
“Instead, fine-grained preference annotation is recommended, both along multiple dimensions or quality (Gehrmann et al.) or for smaller units within the whole output (Krishna et al., 2023; Goyal et al., 2022b).”
Cited by
Singh, S., Nan, Y., Wang, A., D'Souza, D., Kapoor, S., Üstün, A., Koyejo, S., Deng, Y., Longpre, S., Smith, N. A., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.20879 · Cited by 108
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhao, W., Rush, A. M., & Goyal, T.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- arXiv
- 2412.04363
- References
- 1
- Type
- Preprint
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.
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Challenges in Trustworthy Human Evaluation of Chatbots. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.48550/arxiv.2412.04363
- The paper
- Zhao, W., Rush, A. M., & Goyal, T. (2024). Challenges in Trustworthy Human Evaluation of Chatbots. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2412.04363
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
