Related papers: AsymmetryZero: A Framework for Operationalizing Hu…

Large language models excel on objectively verifiable tasks such as math and programming, where evaluation reduces to unit tests or a single correct answer. In contrast, real-world enterprise work is often subjective and context-dependent:…

Large language models (LLMs) have shown promising abilities as cost-effective and reference-free evaluators for assessing language generation quality. In particular, pairwise LLM evaluators, which compare two generated texts and determine…

The LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm offers a scalable, reference-free approach for evaluating language models. Although several calibration techniques have been proposed to better align these evaluators with human judgment, prior studies focus…

If two experts disagree on a test, we may conclude both cannot be 100 per cent correct. But if they completely agree, no possible evaluation can be excluded. This asymmetry in the utility of agreements versus disagreements is explored here…

Automated decision systems increasingly rely on human oversight to ensure accuracy in uncertain cases. This paper presents a practical framework for optimizing such human-in-the-loop classification systems using a double-threshold policy.…

As Competency-Based Education (CBE) is gaining traction around the world, the shift from marks-based assessment to qualitative competency mapping is a manual challenge for educators. This paper tackles the bottleneck issue by suggesting a…

Alignment with human preferences is an important evaluation aspect of LLMs, requiring them to be helpful, honest, safe, and to precisely follow human instructions. Evaluating large language models' (LLMs) alignment typically involves…

Subjective evaluation of LLM behavior -- empathy, restraint, calibrated emotional tone -- is hard. Human inter-rater agreement on such qualities saturates near rho ~ 0.45, and an LLM-as-judge proxy alone risks circularity: a judge sharing…

Pairwise human preference prediction is central to evaluating code-generation systems, where quality often depends on task-specific trade-offs beyond functional correctness. While rubric-based LLM judges improve interpretability by…

Most recent RL for LLMs (RL4LLM) methods avoid explicit critics, replacing them with average advantage baselines. This shift is largely pragmatic: conventional value functions are computationally expensive to train at LLM scale and often…

This paper addresses the challenge of aligning large language models (LLMs) with diverse human preferences within federated learning (FL) environments, where standard methods often fail to adequately represent diverse viewpoints. We…

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…

We present an open-source benchmark and evaluation framework for assessing emotional boundary handling in Large Language Models (LLMs). Using a dataset of 1156 prompts across six languages, we evaluated three leading LLMs (GPT-4o,…

As frontier Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly saturate new benchmarks shortly after they are published, benchmarking itself is at a juncture: if frontier models keep improving, it will become increasingly hard for humans to generate…

A key challenge in MT evaluation is the inherent noise and inconsistency of human ratings. Regression-based neural metrics struggle with this noise, while prompting LLMs shows promise at system-level evaluation but performs poorly at…

Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized the landscape of machine learning, yet current benchmarks often fall short in capturing the diverse behavior of these models in real-world applications. A benchmark's usefulness is determined…

Large Language Models (LLMs) and other automated techniques have been increasingly used to support software developers by generating software artifacts such as code snippets, patches, and comments. However, accurately assessing the…

Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) has emerged as the primary method for aligning large language models (LLMs) with human preferences. The RLHF process typically starts by training a reward model (RM) using human preference…

Supportive conversation depends on skills that go beyond language fluency, including reading emotions, adjusting tone, and navigating moments of resistance, frustration, or distress. Despite rapid progress in language models, we still lack…

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…