Related papers: LLM-as-a-Judge for Reference-less Automatic Code V…

Scaling test-time computation, or affording a generator large language model (LLM) extra compute during inference, typically employs the help of external non-generative evaluators (i.e., reward models). Concurrently, LLM-judges, models…

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as automated evaluators of AI systems, including in high-stakes applications. In this role, LLMs are used to generate judgments about the quality, appropriateness, or even safety of model…

Code review is one of the key processes in the software development lifecycle and is essential to maintain code quality. However, manual code review is subjective and time consuming. Given its rule-based nature, code review is well suited…

LLM-as-a-Judge and reward models are widely used alternatives of multiple-choice questions or human annotators for large language model (LLM) evaluation. Their efficacy shines in evaluating long-form responses, serving a critical role as…

Automation in software engineering increasingly relies on large language models (LLMs) to generate, review, and assess code artifacts. However, establishing LLMs as reliable evaluators remains an open challenge: human evaluations are…

The LLM-as-a-judge paradigm enables flexible, user-defined evaluation, but its effectiveness is often limited by the scarcity of diverse, representative data for refining criteria. We present a tool that integrates synthetic data generation…

Deep research agents increasingly automate complex information-seeking tasks, producing evidence-grounded reports via multi-step reasoning, tool use, and synthesis. Their growing role demands scalable, reliable evaluation, positioning…

Assessment and evaluation have long been critical challenges in artificial intelligence (AI) and natural language processing (NLP). Traditional methods, usually matching-based or small model-based, often fall short in open-ended and dynamic…

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…

LLM-as-a-judge has become a promising paradigm for using large language models (LLMs) to evaluate natural language generation (NLG), but the uncertainty of its evaluation remains underexplored. This lack of reliability may limit its…

Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used as judges to evaluate response quality, providing a scalable alternative to human evaluation. However, most LLM judges operate solely on intrinsic text-based reasoning, limiting their ability to…

Trustworthy evaluation methods for code snippets play a crucial role in neural code generation. Traditional methods, which either rely on reference solutions or require executable test cases, have inherent limitation in flexibility and…

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional capabilities across diverse tasks, driving the development and widespread adoption of LLM-as-a-Judge systems for automated evaluation, including red teaming and benchmarking.…

Large language model (LLM) based task plans and corresponding human demonstrations for embodied AI may be noisy, with unnecessary actions, redundant navigation, and logical errors that reduce policy quality. We propose an iterative…

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as automatic evaluators of generative AI outputs, a paradigm often referred to as "LLM-as-a-judge." In practice, LLM judges are imperfect predictions for the underlying truth and can…

Automatic evaluation with large language models, commonly known as LLM-as-a-judge, is now standard across reasoning and alignment tasks. Despite evaluating many samples in deployment, these evaluators typically (i) treat each case…

The growing scale of evaluation tasks has led to the widespread adoption of automated evaluation using LLMs, a paradigm known as "LLM-as-a-judge". However, improving its alignment with human preferences without complex prompts or…

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…

Large Language Models (LLMs) have excelled at language understanding and generating human-level text. However, even with supervised training and human alignment, these LLMs are susceptible to adversarial attacks where malicious users can…

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…