  Measuring the quality of responses generated by LLMs is a challenging task,
particularly when it comes to evaluating whether the response is aligned with
human preference. A novel approach involves using the LLM itself to make
evaluation and stabilizing the results through multiple independent
evaluations, similar to a single-layer narrow LLM network. This network
consists of a fixed number of neurons, with each neuron being the same LLM. In
this paper, we draw upon the extensive research on deep neural networks to
explore whether deeper and wider networks can lead to fairer evaluations.
Specifically, inspired by the observation that different neurons in a neural
network are responsible for detecting different concepts, we first adaptively
generate as many neuron roles as possible for each evaluation sample. Each
perspective corresponds to the role of a specific LLM neuron in the first
layer. In subsequent layers, we follow the idea that higher layers in deep
networks are responsible for more comprehensive features, each layer receives
representations from all neurons in the previous layer, integrating the locally
learned evaluation information to obtain a more comprehensive evaluation
result. Interestingly, this network design resembles the process of academic
paper reviewing. To validate the effectiveness of our method, we construct the
largest and most diverse English evaluation benchmark LLMEval$^2$ for LLM
evaluators, comprising 15 tasks, 8 abilities, and 2,553 samples. Experimental
results demonstrate that a wider network (involving many reviewers) with 2
layers (one round of discussion) performs the best, improving kappa correlation
coefficient from 0.28 to 0.34. We also leverage WideDeep to aid in the
assessment of Chinese LLMs, which has accelerated the evaluation time by 4.6
times, resulting in a 60% cost saving. WideDeep achieves a remarkable 93%
agreement level among humans.
