@inproceedings{zhao-etal-2025-language,
title = "Language Model Council: Democratically Benchmarking Foundation Models on Highly Subjective Tasks",
author = "Zhao, Justin and
Plaza-del-Arco, Flor Miriam and
Genchel, Benjamin and
Curry, Amanda Cercas",
editor = "Chiruzzo, Luis and
Ritter, Alan and
Wang, Lu",
booktitle = "Proceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers)",
month = apr,
year = "2025",
address = "Albuquerque, New Mexico",
publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
url = "https://aclanthology.org/2025.naacl-long.617/",
doi = "10.18653/v1/2025.naacl-long.617",
pages = "12395--12450",
ISBN = "979-8-89176-189-6",
abstract = "As Large Language Models (LLMs) continue to evolve, evaluating them remains a persistent challenge. Many recent evaluations use LLMs as judges to score outputs from other LLMs, often relying on a single large model like GPT-4o. However, using a single LLM judge is prone to intra-model bias, and many tasks {--} such as those related to emotional intelligence, creative writing, and persuasiveness {--} may be too subjective for a single model to judge fairly. We introduce the Language Model Council (LMC), where a group of LLMs collaborate to create tests, respond to them, and evaluate each other{'}s responses to produce a ranking in a democratic fashion. Unlike previous approaches that focus on reducing cost or bias by using a panel of smaller models, our work examines the benefits and nuances of a fully inclusive LLM evaluation system. In a detailed case study on emotional intelligence, we deploy a council of 20 recent LLMs to rank each other on open-ended responses to interpersonal conflicts. Our results show that the LMC produces rankings that are more separable and more robust, and through a user study, we show that they are more consistent with human evaluations than any individual LLM judge. Using all LLMs for judging can be costly, however, so we use Monte Carlo simulations and hand-curated sub-councils to study hypothetical council compositions and discuss the value of the incremental LLM judge."
}<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<modsCollection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
<mods ID="zhao-etal-2025-language">
<titleInfo>
<title>Language Model Council: Democratically Benchmarking Foundation Models on Highly Subjective Tasks</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Justin</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Zhao</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Flor</namePart>
<namePart type="given">Miriam</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Plaza-del-Arco</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Benjamin</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Genchel</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Amanda</namePart>
<namePart type="given">Cercas</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Curry</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<dateIssued>2025-04</dateIssued>
</originInfo>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<relatedItem type="host">
<titleInfo>
<title>Proceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers)</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Luis</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Chiruzzo</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Alan</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Ritter</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Lu</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Wang</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<publisher>Association for Computational Linguistics</publisher>
<place>
<placeTerm type="text">Albuquerque, New Mexico</placeTerm>
</place>
</originInfo>
<genre authority="marcgt">conference publication</genre>
<identifier type="isbn">979-8-89176-189-6</identifier>
</relatedItem>
<abstract>As Large Language Models (LLMs) continue to evolve, evaluating them remains a persistent challenge. Many recent evaluations use LLMs as judges to score outputs from other LLMs, often relying on a single large model like GPT-4o. However, using a single LLM judge is prone to intra-model bias, and many tasks – such as those related to emotional intelligence, creative writing, and persuasiveness – may be too subjective for a single model to judge fairly. We introduce the Language Model Council (LMC), where a group of LLMs collaborate to create tests, respond to them, and evaluate each other’s responses to produce a ranking in a democratic fashion. Unlike previous approaches that focus on reducing cost or bias by using a panel of smaller models, our work examines the benefits and nuances of a fully inclusive LLM evaluation system. In a detailed case study on emotional intelligence, we deploy a council of 20 recent LLMs to rank each other on open-ended responses to interpersonal conflicts. Our results show that the LMC produces rankings that are more separable and more robust, and through a user study, we show that they are more consistent with human evaluations than any individual LLM judge. Using all LLMs for judging can be costly, however, so we use Monte Carlo simulations and hand-curated sub-councils to study hypothetical council compositions and discuss the value of the incremental LLM judge.</abstract>
<identifier type="citekey">zhao-etal-2025-language</identifier>
<identifier type="doi">10.18653/v1/2025.naacl-long.617</identifier>
<location>
<url>https://aclanthology.org/2025.naacl-long.617/</url>
</location>
<part>
<date>2025-04</date>
<extent unit="page">
<start>12395</start>
<end>12450</end>
</extent>
</part>
</mods>
</modsCollection>
%0 Conference Proceedings
%T Language Model Council: Democratically Benchmarking Foundation Models on Highly Subjective Tasks
%A Zhao, Justin
%A Plaza-del-Arco, Flor Miriam
%A Genchel, Benjamin
%A Curry, Amanda Cercas
%Y Chiruzzo, Luis
%Y Ritter, Alan
%Y Wang, Lu
%S Proceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers)
%D 2025
%8 April
%I Association for Computational Linguistics
%C Albuquerque, New Mexico
%@ 979-8-89176-189-6
%F zhao-etal-2025-language
%X As Large Language Models (LLMs) continue to evolve, evaluating them remains a persistent challenge. Many recent evaluations use LLMs as judges to score outputs from other LLMs, often relying on a single large model like GPT-4o. However, using a single LLM judge is prone to intra-model bias, and many tasks – such as those related to emotional intelligence, creative writing, and persuasiveness – may be too subjective for a single model to judge fairly. We introduce the Language Model Council (LMC), where a group of LLMs collaborate to create tests, respond to them, and evaluate each other’s responses to produce a ranking in a democratic fashion. Unlike previous approaches that focus on reducing cost or bias by using a panel of smaller models, our work examines the benefits and nuances of a fully inclusive LLM evaluation system. In a detailed case study on emotional intelligence, we deploy a council of 20 recent LLMs to rank each other on open-ended responses to interpersonal conflicts. Our results show that the LMC produces rankings that are more separable and more robust, and through a user study, we show that they are more consistent with human evaluations than any individual LLM judge. Using all LLMs for judging can be costly, however, so we use Monte Carlo simulations and hand-curated sub-councils to study hypothetical council compositions and discuss the value of the incremental LLM judge.
%R 10.18653/v1/2025.naacl-long.617
%U https://aclanthology.org/2025.naacl-long.617/
%U https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2025.naacl-long.617
%P 12395-12450
Markdown (Informal)
[Language Model Council: Democratically Benchmarking Foundation Models on Highly Subjective Tasks](https://aclanthology.org/2025.naacl-long.617/) (Zhao et al., NAACL 2025)
ACL