Related papers: Beyond the Surface: Enhancing LLM-as-a-Judge Align…

LLM-based judges have emerged as a scalable alternative to human evaluation and are increasingly used to assess, compare, and improve models. However, the reliability of LLM-based judges themselves is rarely scrutinized. As LLMs become more…

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed across healthcare applications, including clinical documentation, diagnostic reasoning, medicine recommendation, and medical education. Their outputs are largely unstructured clinical…

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable progress through preference-based fine-tuning, which critically depends on the quality of the underlying training data. While human feedback is essential for improving data quality,…

Human relevance assessment is time-consuming and cognitively intensive, limiting the scalability of Information Retrieval evaluation. This has led to growing interest in using large language models (LLMs) as proxies for human judges.…

LLMs-as-a-judge is a recently popularized method which replaces human judgements in task evaluation (Zheng et al. 2024) with automatic evaluation using LLMs. Due to widespread use of RLHF (Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback),…

Validating evaluation metrics for NLG typically relies on expensive and time-consuming human annotations, which predominantly exist only for English datasets. We propose \textit{LLM as a Meta-Judge}, a scalable framework that utilizes LLMs…

Evaluating large language model (LLM) outputs in the legal domain presents unique challenges due to the complex and nuanced nature of legal analysis. Current evaluation approaches either depend on reference data, which is costly to produce,…

Large language models (LLMs) are widely used to evaluate the quality of LLM generations and responses, but this leads to significant challenges: high API costs, uncertain reliability, inflexible pipelines, and inherent biases. To address…

Evaluation of large language model (LLM) outputs requires users to make critical judgments about the best outputs across various configurations. This process is costly and takes time given the large amounts of data. LLMs are increasingly…

Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used as automated judges, where practical value depends on both accuracy and trustworthy, risk-aware judgments. Existing approaches predominantly focus on accuracy, overlooking the necessity of…

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…

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as raters for evaluation tasks. However, their reliability is often limited for subjective tasks, when human judgments involve subtle reasoning beyond annotation labels. Thinking traces,…

Large Language Models (LLMs) are rapidly surpassing human knowledge in many domains. While improving these models traditionally relies on costly human data, recent self-rewarding mechanisms (Yuan et al., 2024) have shown that LLMs can…

Evaluating large language model (LLM) based chat assistants is challenging due to their broad capabilities and the inadequacy of existing benchmarks in measuring human preferences. To address this, we explore using strong LLMs as judges to…

While Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools for evaluating Natural Language Generation (NLG) tasks, their effectiveness is limited by their inability to appropriately weigh the importance of different topics, often…

While large language models (LLMs) have been used for automated grading, they have not yet achieved the same level of performance as humans, especially when it comes to grading complex questions. Existing research on this topic focuses on a…

LLM-as-a-Judge has been widely applied to evaluate and compare different LLM alignmnet approaches (e.g., RLHF and DPO). However, concerns regarding its reliability have emerged, due to LLM judges' biases and inconsistent decision-making.…

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…

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…

Accurate evaluation is central to the large language model (LLM) ecosystem, guiding model selection and downstream adoption across diverse use cases. In practice, however, evaluating generative outputs typically relies on rigid lexical…