Related papers: Calibrate, Don't Curate: Label-Efficient Estimatio…

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…

Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable adaptability to diverse tasks, by leveraging context prompts containing instructions, or minimal input-output examples. However, recent work revealed they also exhibit label bias -- an…

The use of large language models (LLMs) as automated evaluation tools to assess the quality of generated natural language, known as LLMs-as-Judges, has demonstrated promising capabilities and is rapidly gaining widespread attention.…

Multi-constraint instruction following requires verifying whether a response satisfies multiple individual requirements, yet LLM judges are often assessed only through overall-response judgments. We introduce MCJudgeBench, a benchmark for…

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…

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…

The alignment of large language models (LLMs) with human values increasingly relies on using other LLMs as automated judges, or ``autoraters''. However, their reliability is limited by a foundational issue: they are trained on discrete…

Offering a promising solution to the scalability challenges associated with human evaluation, the LLM-as-a-judge paradigm is rapidly gaining traction as an approach to evaluating large language models (LLMs). However, there are still many…

Large language models are often used as judges to score candidate responses, then validated with a single global metric such as correlation with reference labels. This can be misleading when the real deployment task is best-of-n selection…

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…

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 automated judges and synthetic labelers, especially in low-label settings. Yet these systems are stochastic and often overconfident, which makes deployment decisions difficult when…

Benchmarks are important tools to track progress in the development of Large Language Models (LLMs), yet inaccuracies in datasets and evaluation methods consistently undermine their effectiveness. Here, we present Omni-MATH-2, a manually…

Recently, several authors have advocated the use of rule learning algorithms to model multi-label data, as rules are interpretable and can be comprehended, analyzed, or qualitatively evaluated by domain experts. Many rule learning…

Measuring long-run LLM outcomes (user satisfaction, expert judgment, downstream KPIs) is expensive. Teams default to cheap LLM judges, but uncalibrated proxies can invert rankings entirely. Causal Judge Evaluation (CJE) makes it affordable…

Recently, the role of LLM-as-judge in evaluating large language models has gained prominence. However, current judge models suffer from narrow specialization and limited robustness, undermining their capacity for comprehensive evaluations.…

Multi-agent LLM debate improves factuality and reasoning, but most recipes pick a fixed round count, over-spending on easy items and under-spending on hard ones. We adapt Wald's Sequential Probability Ratio Test (SPRT) as a plug-in compute…

To reduce the need for human annotations, large language models (LLMs) have been proposed as judges of the quality of other candidate models. The performance of LLM judges is typically evaluated by measuring the correlation with human…

This paper presents the first systematic comparison investigating whether Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) are superior judges to non-reasoning LLMs. Our empirical analysis yields four key findings: 1) LRMs outperform non-reasoning LLMs in…

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;…