Related papers: No-Knowledge Alarms for Misaligned LLMs-as-Judges

We present ACCORD, a framework and benchmark suite for disentangling the commonsense grounding and reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs) through controlled, multi-hop counterfactuals. ACCORD introduces formal elements to…

Metacognitive knowledge refers to humans' intuitive knowledge of their own thinking and reasoning processes. Today's best LLMs clearly possess some reasoning processes. The paper gives evidence that they also have metacognitive knowledge,…

With the development of Large Language Models (LLMs), numerous efforts have revealed their vulnerabilities to jailbreak attacks. Although these studies have driven the progress in LLMs' safety alignment, it remains unclear whether LLMs have…

There is an increasing trend towards evaluating NLP models with LLMs instead of human judgments, raising questions about the validity of these evaluations, as well as their reproducibility in the case of proprietary models. We provide…

This project develops a self correcting framework for large language models (LLMs) that detects and mitigates hallucinations during multi-step reasoning. Rather than relying solely on final answer correctness, our approach leverages fine…

LLMs are increasingly employed both as judges for evaluating open-ended outputs and as co-creation partners in AI-assisted programming; yet rigorous evaluation in human-AI co-creation settings remains underdeveloped as judgments must be…

Despite the remarkable abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) to answer questions, they often display a considerable level of overconfidence even when the question does not have a definitive answer. To avoid providing hallucinated…

Traditional reference-based metrics, such as BLEU and ROUGE, are less effective for assessing outputs from Large Language Models (LLMs) that produce highly creative or superior-quality text, or in situations where reference outputs are…

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…

Reliable certification of Large Language Models (LLMs)-verifying that failure rates are below a safety threshold-is critical yet challenging. While "LLM-as-a-Judge" offers scalability, judge imperfections, noise, and bias can invalidate…

The questionable responses caused by knowledge hallucination may lead to LLMs' unstable ability in decision-making. However, it has never been investigated whether the LLMs' hallucination is possibly usable to generate negative reasoning…

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…

As Large Language Models (LLMs) become integrated into high-stakes domains, there is a growing need for evaluation methods that are both scalable for real-time deployment and reliable for critical decision-making. While human evaluation is…

Large language models (LLMs) have delivered significant breakthroughs across diverse domains but can still produce unreliable or misleading outputs, posing critical challenges for real-world applications. While many recent studies focus on…

Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly advanced the state-of-the-art in various coding tasks. Beyond directly answering user queries, LLMs can also serve as judges, assessing and comparing the quality of responses generated by…

Prompting large language models (LLMs) to evaluate generated text, known as LLM-as-a-judge, has become a standard evaluation approach in natural language generation (NLG), but is primarily used as a quantitative tool, i.e. with numerical…

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) suffer from critical reasoning gaps, including a tendency to hallucinate and poor accuracy in classifying logical fallacies. This limitation stems from their default System 1 processing, which is fast and…

Large language models (LLMs) are stochastic, and not all models give deterministic answers, even when setting temperature to zero with a fixed random seed. However, few benchmark studies attempt to quantify uncertainty, partly due to the…

The $\textit{LLM-as-a-judge}$ paradigm has become the operational backbone of automated AI evaluation pipelines, yet rests on an unverified assumption: that judges evaluate text strictly on its semantic content, impervious to surrounding…