Related papers: Limits to scalable evaluation at the frontier: LLM…

LLM-as-a-Judge has become the dominant paradigm for evaluating language model outputs, yet LLM judges exhibit systematic biases that compromise evaluation reliability. We present a comprehensive empirical study comparing nine debiasing…

Large language models (LLMs) are widely used as scalable evaluators of model responses in lieu of human annotators. However, imperfect sensitivity and specificity of the LLM judges induce bias in naive evaluation scores. We propose a simple…

New Large Language Models (LLMs) become available every few weeks, and modern application developers confronted with the unenviable task of having to decide if they should switch to a new model. While human evaluation remains the gold…

Recently, there has been a trend of evaluating the Large Language Model (LLM) quality in the flavor of LLM-as-a-Judge, namely leveraging another LLM to evaluate the current output quality. However, existing judges are proven to be biased,…

Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable adaptability to diverse tasks, by leveraging context prompts containing instructions, or minimal input-output examples. However, recent work revealed they also exhibit label bias -- an…

Existing LLM-as-a-Judge systems suffer from three fundamental limitations: limited adaptivity to task- and domain-specific evaluation criteria, systematic biases driven by non-semantic cues such as position, length, format, and model…

Large language models (LLMs) offer an inexpensive yet powerful way to annotate text, but are often inconsistent when compared with experts. These errors can bias downstream estimates of population parameters such as regression coefficients…

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…

Large language models (LLMs) are evolving fast and are now frequently used as evaluators, in a process typically referred to as LLM-as-a-Judge, which provides quality assessments of model outputs. However, recent research points out…

Offering a promising solution to the scalability challenges associated with human evaluation, the LLM-as-a-judge paradigm is rapidly gaining traction as an approach to evaluating large language models (LLMs). However, there are still many…

As large language models (LLMs) continue to advance, reliable evaluation methods are essential particularly for open-ended, instruction-following tasks. LLM-as-a-Judge enables automatic evaluation using LLMs as evaluators, but its…

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) on open-ended tasks without ground-truth labels is increasingly done via the LLM-as-a-judge paradigm. A critical but under-modeled issue is that judge LLMs differ substantially in reliability;…

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being used to autonomously evaluate the quality of content in communication systems, e.g., to assess responses in telecom customer support chatbots. However, the impartiality of these AI…

As AI models progress beyond simple chatbots into more complex workflows, we draw ever closer to the event horizon beyond which AI systems will be utilized in autonomous, self-maintaining feedback loops. Any autonomous AI system will depend…

Employing Large Language Models (LLMs) to assess the quality of generated responses, such as prompting instruct-tuned models or fine-tuning judge models, has become a widely adopted evaluation method. It is also known that such evaluators…

Large Language Models (LLMs) are powerful tools with the potential to benefit society immensely, yet, they have demonstrated biases that perpetuate societal inequalities. Despite significant advancements in bias mitigation techniques using…

LLM-as-a-Judge has become a dominant approach in automated evaluation systems, playing critical roles in model alignment, leaderboard construction, quality control, and so on. However, the scalability and trustworthiness of this approach…

The recent explosion of large language models (LLMs), each with its own general or specialized strengths, makes scalable, reliable benchmarking more urgent than ever. Standard practices nowadays face fundamental trade-offs: closed-ended…

The evaluation and post-training of large language models (LLMs) rely on supervision, but strong supervision for difficult tasks is often unavailable, especially when evaluating frontier models. In such cases, models are demonstrated to…

NLP benchmarks rely on standardized datasets for training and evaluating models and are crucial for advancing the field. Traditionally, expert annotations ensure high-quality labels; however, the cost of expert annotation does not scale…