Related papers: JudgeBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLM-based J…

To reduce the need for human annotations, large language models (LLMs) have been proposed as judges of the quality of other candidate models. The performance of LLM judges is typically evaluated by measuring the correlation with human…

As multi-modal large language models (MLLMs) frequently exhibit errors when solving scientific problems, evaluating the validity of their reasoning processes is critical for ensuring reliability and uncovering fine-grained model weaknesses.…

Evaluating creative writing generated by large language models (LLMs) remains challenging because open-ended narratives lack ground truths. Without performant automated evaluation methods, off-the-shelf (OTS) language models are employed as…

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as automated judges to evaluate recommendation systems, search engines, and other subjective tasks, where relying on human evaluators can be costly, time-consuming, and unscalable. LLMs…

Two methodologies dominate current practices of benchmarking: rubric-based scoring evaluates items against predefined criteria, whereas comparative judgment elicits pairwise preferences between outputs. Although both methodologies are…

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in both academic and industry settings to automate the evaluation of information seeking systems, particularly by generating graded relevance judgments. Previous work on LLM-based…

The "LLM-as-a-Judge" paradigm, using Large Language Models (LLMs) as automated evaluators, is pivotal to LLM development, offering scalable feedback for complex tasks. However, the reliability of these judges is compromised by various…

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have been increasingly used as automatic evaluators-a paradigm known as MLLM-as-a-Judge. However, their reliability and vulnerabilities to biases remain underexplored. We find that many MLLM judges…

We introduce Debate Speech Evaluation as a novel and challenging benchmark for assessing LLM judges. Evaluating debate speeches requires a deep understanding of the speech at multiple levels, including argument strength and relevance, the…

LLM-as-judge evaluation has become standard practice for open-ended model assessment; however, judges exhibit systematic biases that cannot be averaged out by increasing the number of scenarios or generations. These biases are often similar…

Automatic evaluators such as reward models play a central role in the alignment and evaluation of large vision-language models (LVLMs). Despite their growing importance, these evaluators are almost exclusively assessed on English-centric…

As Large Language Models (LLMs) saturate elementary benchmarks, the research frontier has shifted from generation to the reliability of automated evaluation. We demonstrate that standard "LLM-as-a-Judge" protocols suffer from a systematic…

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance across diverse domains, yet they still encounter challenges such as insufficient domain-specific knowledge, biases, and hallucinations. This underscores the need for…

Evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) for mental health support is challenging due to the emotionally and cognitively complex nature of therapeutic dialogue. Existing benchmarks are limited in scale, reliability, often relying on…

LLM-as-a-judge approaches have emerged as a scalable solution for evaluating model behaviors, yet they rely on evaluation criteria often created by a single individual, embedding that person's assumptions, priorities, and interpretive lens.…

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong capabilities in various aspects. However, when applying them to the highly specialized, safe-critical legal domain, it is unclear how much legal knowledge they possess and whether they…

The adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) as automated evaluators (LLM-as-a-judge) has revealed critical inconsistencies in current evaluation frameworks. We identify two fundamental types of inconsistencies: (1) Score-Comparison…

As the range of applications for Large Language Models (LLMs) continues to grow, the demand for effective serving solutions becomes increasingly critical. Despite the versatility of LLMs, no single model can optimally address all tasks and…

Aligning LLM-based judges with human preferences is a significant challenge, as they are difficult to calibrate and often suffer from rubric sensitivity, bias, and instability. Overcoming this challenge advances key applications, such as…

Recently, Large Language Models (LLMs) have been increasingly used to automate SE tasks such as code generation and summarization. However, evaluating the quality of LLM-generated software artifacts remains challenging. Human evaluation,…