Hugging Face Trending Papers

Reliability of LLM Judges for Evaluating Entity Alignment

Hugging Face Trending Papers
Aug 17

Toward Better Assessment of LLMs' Performance in Clinical Error Detection

Automated detection of errors in clinical documentation is a promising application of large language models (LLMs), yet decisions to deploy such models rest on benchmarks that evaluate each clinical note in isolation. Error-detection benchmarks are typically constructed by injecting errors into notes, such that each erroneous note has a natural counterpart.

arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 2

Post-hoc Alignment of LLM-judges to Human Judgment Distribution

The paper introduces NAPHA, a lightweight post‑hoc alignment method that improves large language model (LLM) predictions of human judgment distributions (HJD) by matching LLM output distributions to HJD through entropy‑based class assignment and specialized alignment models. Experiments on five datasets show that while LLMs perform near human‑level on hard‑label tasks, they struggle with soft‑label predictions, and NAPHA consistently enhances soft‑label accuracy, especially on high‑entropy instances. The study also demonstrates that better entropy class prediction can further boost NAPHA’s effectiveness.

By Sebastian Steindl, Nikos Voskarides, Alberto Gasparin, Diego Marcheggiani
arXiv Machine Learning
Aug 27

OpenSanctions Pairs: Large-Scale Entity Matching with LLMs

OpenSanctions Pairs is the first large‑scale public benchmark for entity matching on sanctions and OSINT data, comprising 755,540 expert‑labeled pairs drawn from over 1 million entities across 293 source datasets and 45 jurisdictions. The dataset spans multiple languages and writing systems, inconsistent structures, and time‑varying provenance, making it far more heterogeneous than prior benchmarks. Baseline experiments show a rule‑based matcher achieving 91.3 % F1, GPT‑4o reaching 99.0 % F1, and a locally deployable open‑source model scoring 98.2 % F1, with complementary failure modes that highlight the need to focus on downstream pipeline components.

By Chandler Smith, Magnus Sesodia, Friedrich Lindenberg, Christian Schroeder de Witt
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 28

Where Does Retrieval-Based Open-Ended Evaluation Fail? Automatic Taxonomy Induction from Long-Form Medical Answer Factuality Verification

The paper investigates why retrieval‑based open‑ended evaluation fails in medical fact verification. By creating two detailed taxonomies—one for retrieval‑stage errors across five quality dimensions and another for verifier‑reasoning errors across six steps—the authors automatically label evidence quality and reasoning errors using an LLM‑as‑Judge pipeline. Their large‑scale stress tests across multiple retrieval methods and verifier models show that increasing model size, reasoning effort, source breadth, or medical fine‑tuning does not eliminate these failure modes, indicating fundamental limits of the retrieve‑then‑verify paradigm in open‑ended medical contexts.

By Heyuan Huang, Jirui Dai, Alexandra DeLucia, Sonal Joshi, Mahsa Yarmohammadi, Jie Gao, Bernal Jim\'enez Guti\'errez, Mark Dredze
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 14

Can We Trust LLM Judges: A Study of Capability-Dependent Biases and Multi-Judge Ensemble for Bias Calibration

The paper investigates how large language models (LLMs) used as judges in absolute scoring tasks exhibit systematic biases that compromise reliability. It shows that a judge’s task accuracy strongly predicts both its judging accuracy and its directional bias, yet more capable examinee models consistently receive more lenient judgments. To mitigate these biases, the authors propose a calibrated weighted majority voting (WMV) ensemble that estimates judges’ error rates from inter-judge agreement patterns, achieving near-oracle performance without labeled data and improving both accuracy and fairness.

By Gemma Zhang, Prachi Badarayani, Asmi Kumar, Sadid Hasan, Sulaiman Vesal