Related papers: Reference-Free Rating of LLM Responses via Latent …
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) obtain state of the art zero shot relevance ranking performance on a variety of information retrieval tasks. The two most common prompts to elicit LLM relevance judgments are pointwise scoring (a.k.a. relevance…
Given the challenge of automatically evaluating free-form outputs from large language models (LLMs), an increasingly common solution is to use LLMs themselves as the judging mechanism, without any gold-standard scores. Implicitly, this…
Relevance judgments are crucial for evaluating information retrieval systems, but traditional human-annotated labels are time-consuming and expensive. As a result, many researchers turn to automatic alternatives to accelerate method…
Large language models (LLMs) can act as evaluators, a role studied by methods like LLM-as-a-Judge and fine-tuned judging LLMs. In the field of education, LLMs have been studied as assistant tools for students and teachers. Our research…
Evaluation and ranking of large language models (LLMs) has become an important problem with the proliferation of these models and their impact. Evaluation methods either require human responses which are expensive to acquire or use pairs of…
An evaluator, such as an LLM-as-a-judge, is trustworthy when there exists some agreed-upon way to measure its performance as a labeller. Traditional approaches either rely on testing the evaluator against references or assume that it…
The emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) as chat assistants capable of generating human-like conversations has amplified the need for robust evaluation methods, particularly for open-ended tasks. Conventional metrics such as EM and F1,…
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.…
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as automatic judges to evaluate system outputs in tasks such as summarization, dialogue, and creative writing. A faithful judge should base its verdicts solely on response quality and…
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) are often used as automated judges to evaluate text, but their effectiveness can be hindered by various unintentional biases. We propose using linear classifying probes, trained by leveraging differences between…
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…
Given the rapid progress of generative AI, there is a pressing need to systematically compare and choose between the numerous models and configurations available. The scale and versatility of such evaluations make the use of LLM-based…
We present the Judge Reliability Harness, an open source library for constructing validation suites that test the reliability of LLM judges. As LLM based scoring is widely deployed in AI benchmarks, more tooling is needed to efficiently…
Offline evaluation of search systems depends on test collections. These benchmarks provide the researchers with a corpus of documents, topics and relevance judgements indicating which documents are relevant for each topic. While test…
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…
Current IR evaluation is based on relevance judgments, created either manually or automatically, with decisions outsourced to Large Language Models (LLMs). We offer an alternative paradigm, that never relies on relevance judgments in any…
Using Large Language Models (LLMs) for relevance assessments offers promising opportunities to improve Information Retrieval (IR), Natural Language Processing (NLP), and related fields. Indeed, LLMs hold the promise of allowing IR…
Performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) on multiple-choice tasks differs markedly between symbol-based and cloze-style evaluation formats. The observed discrepancies are systematically attributable to task characteristics: natural…