**Evaluation Formats.** Depending on the type of evaluation outcome, the evaluation format can be categorized into _score-based evaluation_ and _language-based evaluation_. Score-based evaluation employs measurable metrics to assign quality scores (_e.g._, ratings or rankings) for evaluated texts. A prevalent way is to conduct pairwise comparison, where LLMs are used to determine the partial order relation of candidate texts following specific guidelines [354, 647, 727], which greatly simplifies the evaluation task. However, it may face the inefficiency issue when scaling up the number of candidates [727]. When high-quality reference texts are available during evaluation, LLMs can be instructed to score texts under the guidance provided by references [727, 728, 716]. On the other hand, language-based evaluation focuses on generating critiques and suggestions, offering qualitative explanation beyond simple quantitative scoring [889, 890, 371, 891, 892, 893, 894, 895, 371, 896, 372, 897, 898, 373, 899, 381, 899, 390, 391, 892, 893, 894, 895, 896, 897, 898, 999, 900, 899, 899, 910, 899, 899, 890, 891, 892, 893, 894, 895, 896, 897, 898, 899, 999, 900, 891, 899, 899, 892, 893, 894, 895, 896, 897, 898, 899, 988, 999, 990, 991, 992, 993, 994, 995, 996, 997, 998, 999, 1000, 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1008, 1009, 1010, 1011, 1012, 1013, 1014, 1015, 1016, 1017, 1018, 1019, 1020, 1021, 1022, 1023, 1024, 1025, 1026, 1027, 1028, 1029, 1030, 1031, 1032, 1033, 1034, 1035, 1036, 1037, 1038, 1039, 1040, 1041, 1042, 1043, 1044, 1044, 1045, 1046, 1047, 1048, 1049, 1050, 1051, 1052, 1053, 1054, 1055, 1056, 1057, 1058, 1059, 1060, 1061, 1062, 1063, 1064, 1065, 1066, 1067, 1068, 1069, 1070, 1071, 1072, 1073, 1074, 1075, 1076, 1077, 1078, 1079, 1080, 1081, 1082, 1preferences and the fairness of the evaluations made by LLMs [647, 727, 893, 897, 898]. As a representative benchmark, MT-Bench [727] evaluates the agreement between LLMs and human judgments, demonstrating that GPT-4 aligns closely with human preferences in no-tie comparisons on 80 multi-turn questions. In addition, to address potential biases arising from subjective human evaluations, LLMBar [897] manually designs outputs that are objectively worse but superficially appealing, which could mislead evaluators. The evaluation results reveal that even the most advanced LLMs still fall short of human-level evaluation in the challenging setting.