Related papers: Judge Circuits
As Natural Language Generation (NLG) continues to be widely adopted, properly assessing it has become quite difficult. Lately, using large language models (LLMs) for evaluating these generations has gained traction, as they tend to align…
As Large Language Models (LLMs) saturate elementary benchmarks, the research frontier has shifted from generation to the reliability of automated evaluation. We demonstrate that standard "LLM-as-a-Judge" protocols suffer from a systematic…
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,…
This research introduces the Judge's Verdict Benchmark, a novel two-step methodology to evaluate Large Language Models (LLMs) as judges for response accuracy evaluation tasks. We assess how well 54 LLMs can replicate human judgment when…
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…
LLM-as-a-Judge refers to the automatic modeling of preferences for responses generated by Large Language Models (LLMs), which is of significant importance for both LLM evaluation and reward modeling. Although generative LLMs have made…
Large language models are widely adopted as automated evaluation judges, yet the stability of their verdicts under semantically equivalent prompt rephrasings remains largely unexamined. We conduct a systematic empirical study of…
Automatic evaluation of medical open-ended question answering (OEQA) remains challenging due to the need for expert annotations. We evaluate whether large language models (LLMs) can act as judges of semantic equivalence in French medical…
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…
LLM-as-a-Judge pipelines have become the de facto evaluator for agent safety, yet existing benchmarks treat their verdicts as ground-truth proxies without checking whether the verdicts depend on the agent's behavior or merely on how the…
Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly used as automated judges for multimodal systems, yet their scores provide no indication of reliability. We study this problem through conformal prediction, a distribution-free framework that…
There is an increasing trend towards evaluating NLP models with LLMs instead of human judgments, raising questions about the validity of these evaluations, as well as their reproducibility in the case of proprietary models. We provide…
LLM-as-a-judge ensembles are the standard paradigm for scalable evaluation, but their aggregation mechanisms suffer from a fundamental flaw: they implicitly assume that judges provide independent estimates of true quality. However, in…
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to assign document relevance labels in information retrieval pipelines, especially in domains lacking human-labeled data. However, different models often disagree on borderline cases,…
Automated evaluation leveraging large language models (LLMs), commonly referred to as LLM evaluators or LLM-as-a-judge, has been widely used in measuring the performance of dialogue systems. However, the self-preference bias in LLMs has…
LLM-as-a-judge approaches have emerged as a scalable solution for evaluating model behaviors, yet they rely on evaluation criteria often created by a single individual, embedding that person's assumptions, priorities, and interpretive lens.…
LLM-as-a-judge has become the de facto approach for evaluating LLM outputs. However, judges are known to exhibit self-preference bias (SPB): they tend to favor outputs produced by themselves or by models from their own family. This skews…
Evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) often requires costly human annotations. To address this, LLM-based judges have been proposed, which compare the outputs of two LLMs enabling the ranking of models without human intervention. While…
This study introduces the "Grade Score", a novel metric designed to evaluate the consistency and fairness of Large Language Models (LLMs) when used as multiple-choice judges with respect to order bias and choice consistency. The Grade Score…
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…