Related papers: Causal Judge Evaluation: Calibrated Surrogate Metr…

Large language models (LLMs) have been utilized in solving diverse reasoning tasks, encompassing common sense, arithmetic and deduction tasks. However, with difficulties of reversing thinking patterns and irrelevant premises, how to…

Assessing software test coverage at scale remains a bottleneck in QA pipelines. We present LLM-as-a-Judge (LAJ), a production-ready, rubric-driven framework for evaluating Gherkin acceptance tests with structured JSON outputs. Across 20…

Evaluating relevance in large-scale search systems is fundamentally constrained by the governance gap between nuanced, resource-constrained human oversight and the high-throughput requirements of production systems. While traditional…

LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation has become a standard tool for assessing base model performance. However, characterizing performance via the naive estimator, i.e., raw judge outputs, is systematically biased. Recent work has proposed estimators…

Multi-judge evaluation is increasingly used to assess LLMs and reward models, and the prevailing heuristic is to curate: keep the most accurate judges and discard weaker ones. We show that this heuristic can reverse when the target is not…

Test-time compute scaling, the practice of spending extra computation during inference via repeated sampling, search, or extended reasoning, has become a powerful lever for improving large language model performance. Yet deploying these…

LLM-as-a-Judge frameworks are increasingly trusted to automate evaluation in place of human experts, yet their reliability in high-stakes medical contexts remains unproven. We stress-test this assumption for detecting incomplete…

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…

As large language models (LLMs) increasingly generate and process clinical text, scalable evaluation has become critical. LLM-as-a-Judge (LaaJ), which uses LLMs to evaluate model outputs, offers a scalable alternative to costly expert…

The ability to rigorously estimate the failure rates of large language models (LLMs) is a prerequisite for their safe deployment. Currently, however, practitioners often face a tradeoff between expensive human gold standards and potentially…

As LLM-based judges become integral to industry applications, obtaining well-calibrated uncertainty estimates efficiently has become critical for production deployment. However, existing techniques, such as verbalized confidence and…

LLM-as-a-Judge has been widely adopted as an evaluation method and served as supervised rewards in model training. However, existing benchmarks for LLM-as-a-Judge are mainly relying on human-annotated ground truth, which introduces human…

LLM-as-judge evaluation has become standard practice for open-ended model assessment; however, judges exhibit systematic biases that cannot be averaged out by increasing the number of scenarios or generations. These biases are often similar…

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges of chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning, but it remains unclear whether they can reliably assess process faithfulness rather than just answer plausibility. We introduce C2-Faith, a…

Aligning large language models (LLMs) with human preferences is inherently multi-objective: different users and evaluation criteria impose heterogeneous and often conflicting requirements on model outputs. We propose CAGE (Common-Agency…

We present a principled approach to provide LLM-based evaluation with a rigorous guarantee of human agreement. We first propose that a reliable evaluation method should not uncritically rely on model preferences for pairwise evaluation, but…

Recent progress in reasoning models suggests that generating plausible attempts for research-level mathematics may be within reach, but verification remains a bottleneck, consuming scarce expert time. We hypothesize that a meaningful…

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…

To facilitate robust and trustworthy deployment of large language models (LLMs), it is essential to quantify the reliability of their generations through uncertainty estimation. While recent efforts have made significant advancements by…

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…