Related papers: CyclicJudge: Mitigating Judge Bias Efficiently in …

LLM-as-a-Judge has emerged as a promising alternative to human evaluators across various tasks, yet inherent biases - particularly position bias, the tendency to favor solutions based on their position within the prompt - compromise its…

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…

LLM-as-a-Judge has been widely adopted across various research and practical applications, yet the robustness and reliability of its evaluation remain a critical issue. A core challenge it faces is bias, which has primarily been studied in…

The "LLM-as-a-Judge" paradigm, using Large Language Models (LLMs) as automated evaluators, is pivotal to LLM development, offering scalable feedback for complex tasks. However, the reliability of these judges is compromised by various…

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 model (LLM)-based judges are widely adopted for automated evaluation and reward modeling, yet their judgments are often affected by judgment biases. Accurately evaluating these biases is essential for ensuring the reliability…

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…

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…

LLM-as-a-Judge has become the dominant paradigm for evaluating language model outputs, yet LLM judges exhibit systematic biases that compromise evaluation reliability. We present a comprehensive empirical study comparing nine debiasing…

Evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) in open-ended scenarios is challenging because existing benchmarks and metrics can not measure them comprehensively. To address this problem, we propose to fine-tune LLMs as scalable judges (JudgeLM)…

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have been increasingly used as automatic evaluators-a paradigm known as MLLM-as-a-Judge. However, their reliability and vulnerabilities to biases remain underexplored. We find that many MLLM judges…

LLM-as-a-Judge has been widely utilized as an evaluation method in various benchmarks and served as supervised rewards in model training. However, despite their excellence in many domains, potential issues are under-explored, undermining…

Accurate and consistent evaluation is crucial for decision-making across numerous fields, yet it remains a challenging task due to inherent subjectivity, variability, and scale. Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable success…

Automated \enquote{LLM-as-a-Judge} frameworks have become the de facto standard for scalable evaluation across natural language processing. For instance, in safety evaluation, these judges are relied upon to evaluate harmfulness in order to…

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…

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…

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 being widely applied across various fields, but as tasks become more complex, evaluating their responses is increasingly challenging. Compared to human evaluators, the use of LLMs to support performance…

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-a-judge has emerged as a cornerstone technique for evaluating large language models by leveraging LLM reasoning to score prompt-response pairs. Since LLM judgments are stochastic, practitioners commonly query each pair multiple times…