@inproceedings{arif-etal-2025-fellowship,
    title = "The Fellowship of the {LLM}s: Multi-Model Workflows for Synthetic Preference Optimization Dataset Generation",
    author = "Arif, Samee  and
      Farid, Sualeha  and
      Azeemi, Abdul Hameed  and
      Athar, Awais  and
      Raza, Agha Ali",
    editor = "Dhole, Kaustubh  and
      Clinciu, Miruna",
    booktitle = "Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Generation, Evaluation and Metrics (GEM{\texttwosuperior})",
    month = jul,
    year = "2025",
    address = "Vienna, Austria and virtual meeting",
    publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
    url = "https://preview.aclanthology.org/transition-to-people-yaml/2025.gem-1.4/",
    pages = "30--45",
    ISBN = "979-8-89176-261-9",
    abstract = "This paper presents a novel methodology for generating synthetic Preference Optimization (PO) datasets using multi-model workflows. We evaluate the effectiveness and potential of these workflows in automating and enhancing the dataset generation process. PO dataset generation requires two modules: (1) $\textit{response evaluation}$, and (2) $\textit{response generation}$. In the $\textit{response evaluation}$ module, the responses from Large Language Models (LLMs) are evaluated and ranked - a task typically carried out by human annotators that we automate using LLMs. We assess the response evaluation module in a 2 step process. In step 1, we assess LLMs as evaluators using three distinct prompting strategies. In step 2, we apply the winning prompting strategy to compare the performance of LLM-as-a-Judge, LLMs-as-a-Jury, and LLM Debate. Our evaluation shows that GPT-4o-as-a-Judge is more consistent across all datasets. For the $\textit{response generation}$ module, we use the identified LLM evaluator configuration and compare different configurations of the LLM Feedback Loop. We use the win rate to determine the best multi-model configuration for generation. Experimenting with various configurations, we find that the LLM Feedback Loop, with Llama as the generator and Gemma as the reviewer, achieves a notable 71.8{\%} and 73.8{\%} win rate over single-model Llama and Gemma, respectively. After identifying the best configurations for both modules, we generate our PO datasets using the above pipeline."
}