arXiv:2601. 21817v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Evaluating large language models (LLMs) on open-ended tasks without ground-truth labels is increasingly done via the LLM-as-a-judge paradigm.
arXiv:2607. 16259v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Pretrained models are typically ranked on multi-task leaderboards to assess their effectiveness across diverse tasks.
arXiv:2510. 06732v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as rerankers in information retrieval, yet their ranking behavior can be steered by small, natural-sounding prompts.
arXiv:2607. 28282v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Evaluating the quality and relevance of textual outputs from Large Language Models (LLMs) remains challenging and resource-intensive.
arXiv:2606. 08679v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Pretrained models are often evaluated on multi-task leaderboards to measure their applicability in diverse contexts.
arXiv:2511. 04689v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Evaluating large language models (LLMs) typically requires thousands of benchmark items, making the process expensive, slow, and increasingly impractical at scale.
arXiv:2606. 05308v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: With PRECISE, we extended Prediction-Powered Inference to produce bias-corrected estimates of ranking evaluation metrics by combining a small human-labeled set with a large LLM-judged set.
arXiv:2606. 01070v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Dense retrievers excel at first-stage candidate generation but lack effective reranking in zero-resource settings.
arXiv:2605. 04495v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) relies on evidence ranking to determine what information is exposed to the generator, yet existing retrieval and reranking methods primarily estimate query--document relevance.
arXiv:2608. 02455v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Human-centered assessment tasks, which are essential for systematic decision-making, rely heavily on human judgment and typically lack verifiable ground truth.
arXiv:2608. 14425v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM evaluations often use fixed sampling budgets, testing every item the same number of times even after estimates are precise.
Human-centered assessment tasks, which are essential for systematic decision-making, rely heavily on human judgment and typically lack verifiable ground truth. Existing approaches face a dilemma: methods using only human judgments suffer from heterogeneous expertise and inconsistent rating scales, while methods using only model-generated scores must learn from imperfect proxies or incomplete features.