相关论文: Validating LLM-as-a-Judge Systems under Rating Ind…

In this position paper, we argue that human evaluation of generative large language models (LLMs) should be a multidisciplinary undertaking that draws upon insights from disciplines such as user experience research and human behavioral…

Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized AI-generated content evaluation, with the LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm becoming increasingly popular. However, current single-LLM evaluation approaches face significant challenges, including…

The LLM-as-a-judge paradigm enables flexible, user-defined evaluation, but its effectiveness is often limited by the scarcity of diverse, representative data for refining criteria. We present a tool that integrates synthetic data generation…

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as automatic judges to evaluate system outputs in tasks such as summarization, dialogue, and creative writing. A faithful judge should base its verdicts solely on response quality and…

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly embedded in evaluative processes, from information filtering to assessing and addressing knowledge gaps through explanation and credibility judgments. This raises the need to examine how such…

Evaluating large language model (LLM) outputs in the legal domain presents unique challenges due to the complex and nuanced nature of legal analysis. Current evaluation approaches either depend on reference data, which is costly to produce,…

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in high-stakes fields where their decisions impact rights and equity. However, LLMs' judicial fairness and implications for social justice remain underexplored. When LLMs act as judges, the…

This paper introduces a framework for the automated evaluation of natural language texts. A manually constructed rubric describes how to assess multiple dimensions of interest. To evaluate a text, a large language model (LLM) is prompted…

A surge of recent work explores the ethical and societal implications of large-scale AI models that make "moral" judgments. Much of this literature focuses either on alignment with human judgments through various thought experiments or on…

Rubric-based text evaluation increasingly uses large language models (LLMs) as scalable judges, but aligning frozen black-box models with human scoring standards remains challenging. We formulate this challenge as a criteria-transfer…

As LLMs are increasingly integrated into human-in-the-loop content moderation systems, a central challenge is deciding when their outputs can be trusted versus when escalation for human review is preferable. We propose a novel framework for…

The paradigm of LLM-as-a-judge relies on a critical assumption, namely that high inter-evaluator agreement indicates reliable and objective evaluation. We present two complementary findings that challenge this assumption. \textbf{First}, we…

Reasoning LLMs-as-Judges, which can benefit from inference-time scaling, provide a promising path for extending the success of reasoning models to non-verifiable domains where the output correctness/quality cannot be directly checked.…

Reward model (RM) plays a pivotal role in reinforcement learning with human feedback (RLHF) for aligning large language models (LLMs). However, classical RMs trained on human preferences are vulnerable to reward hacking and generalize…

With the rising human-like precision of Large Language Models (LLMs) in numerous tasks, their utilization in a variety of real-world applications is becoming more prevalent. Several studies have shown that LLMs excel on many standard NLP…

Some prior work has shown that LLMs perform well in NLG evaluation for different tasks. However, we discover that LLMs seem to confuse different evaluation criteria, which reduces their reliability. For further verification, we first…

Automatic reviewing helps handle a large volume of papers, provides early feedback and quality control, reduces bias, and allows the analysis of trends. We evaluate the alignment of automatic paper reviews with human reviews using an arena…

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) in diverse and challenging scenarios is essential to align them with human preferences. To mitigate the prohibitive costs associated with human evaluations, utilizing a powerful LLM as a judge has…

Human evaluation is indispensable and inevitable for assessing the quality of texts generated by machine learning models or written by humans. However, human evaluation is very difficult to reproduce and its quality is notoriously unstable,…

Preference mechanisms, such as human preference, LLM-as-a-Judge (LaaJ), and reward models, are central to aligning and evaluating large language models (LLMs). Yet, the underlying concepts that drive these preferences remain poorly…