The paper introduces LLM‑PeerReview, an unsupervised ensemble method that selects the best response from multiple LLM-generated candidates by scoring each answer with several LLMs, aggregating those scores via averaging or a graphical model, and choosing the highest-scoring response. The approach is peer‑review inspired, transparent, and interpretable, and it outperforms the Smoothie‑Global model by 6.9%–7.3% across factual recall QA, math reasoning, and instruction‑following tasks. The authors also provide a curated benchmark suite of 12 ensemble methods evaluated on four datasets and three task families to aid reproducibility.
By Zhijun Chen, Zeyu Ji, Qianren Mao, Hao Wu, Jinhuan Song, Junhang Cheng, Bangjie Qin, Zhuoran Li, Jingzheng Li, Kai Sun, Zizhe Wang, Yikun Ban, Zhu Sun, Xiangyang Ji, Hailong Sun, Xiao Huang
arXiv:2409.00696v4 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Rating-based human evaluation has become an essential tool to accurately evaluate the impressive performance of large language models (LLMs)....
By Jasper Dekoninck, Maximilian Baader, Martin Vechev
arXiv:2608. 05726v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are often used as evaluators of text quality, known as LLM-as-a-Judge, which can outperform conventional automatic evaluation metrics that rely on reference texts.
By Yuma Asato, Kiyoaki Shirai, Natthawut Kertkeidkachorn
Large Language Models (LLMs) are often used as evaluators of text quality, known as LLM-as-a-Judge, which can outperform conventional automatic evaluation metrics that rely on reference texts. However, LLM evaluators tend to generate particular scores regardless of the context of the evaluated text, which is known as scoring bias.
arXiv:2602. 12424v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Benchmarks establish a standardized evaluation framework to systematically assess the performance of large language models (LLMs), facilitating objective comparisons and driving advancements in the field.
By Ziqian Zhang, Xingjian Hu, Yue Huang, Kai Zhang, Ruoxi Chen, Yixin Liu, Qingsong Wen, Kaidi Xu, Xiangliang Zhang, Neil Zhenqiang Gong, Lichao Sun
arXiv:2305.12474v4 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Large Language Models(LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance across various natural language processing tasks; however, how to comprehensiv...
By Xiaotian Zhang, Chunyang Li, Yi Zong, Zhengyu Ying, Liang He, Xipeng Qiu, Tianxiang Sun, Peng Li, Shiqiao Meng, Yanjun Zheng, Jun Zhan, Zhangyue Yin, Xiannian Hu, Guofeng Quan, Qixiang Wang
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.
By Bertil Braun, Martin Forell
IDEAlign introduces a new protocol for evaluating the similarity of large language model (LLM) annotations to expert judgments. It uses pick‑the‑odd‑one‑out tasks to capture expert similarity and benchmarks various similarity methods—including text embeddings, topic models, and LLM-as-a-judge—against these human ratings. Applied to educational datasets, the study finds that most metrics miss nuanced expert dimensions, with LLM-as-a-judge performing best yet still insufficient for full expert alignment.
By Hyunji Nam, Lucia Langlois, James Malamut, Mei Tan, Dorottya Demszky
The paper examines LLM-as-a-Judge systems used to assess AI-generated text, questioning the assumption that judgments are derived from reasoning over responses and rubrics. It finds that classifiers trained solely on rubric text can predict judge outputs, indicating that rubrics contain recoverable evaluative signals independent of the responses. Counterfactual experiments show judges often fail to adjust decisions when either the response or rubric criterion is reversed, raising doubts about the reliability of rubric-based LLM evaluation.
By Anshul Bagaria, Sowmya S Sundaram, Gokul S Krishnan, Balaraman Ravindran
The paper introduces BASSE, a multilingual meta‑evaluation dataset containing 2,040 human‑rated abstractive summaries produced manually or by five LLMs with four prompts. Annotators scored each summary on coherence, consistency, fluency, relevance, and 5W1H using a 5‑point Likert scale. Benchmarking shows proprietary LLM‑judge models best align with human judgments, followed by criteria‑specific automatic metrics, while open‑source judge LLMs perform poorly.
By Jeremy Barnes, Naiara Perez, Alba Bonet-Jover, Bego\~na Altuna
The paper proposes a training‑free detector that uses sentence‑level context sensitivity to identify unsupported content in retrieval‑augmented generation (RAG) answers. By re‑scoring each sentence with full context, no context, and each chunk removed, the method flags the chunk whose removal most reduces a sentence’s likelihood as the likely source. Evaluated on RAGTruth, TofuEval, and RAGBench, the detector outperforms answer‑level faithfulness scores, achieving AUCs up to 0.745 and matching per‑chunk fact‑checkers while using only a fraction of the compute required by large‑language‑model judges.
By Mohamed Aly Bouke
arXiv:2606. 27226v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating LLM outputs remains a major bottleneck in NLP: human evaluation is expensive and slow, lexical metrics correlate poorly with human judgments on open-ended generation, and holistic LLM judges often produce opaque scores that are hard to debug.
By Sangwoo Cho, Kushal Chawla, Pengshan Cai, Zefang Liu, Chenyang Zhu, Shi-Xiong Zhang, Sambit Sahu