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. 28282v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Evaluating the quality and relevance of textual outputs from Large Language Models (LLMs) remains challenging and resource-intensive.
Large Language Model judges are commonly used to rank texts via pairwise comparison, with reliability traditionally measured by position bias, transitivity, and pairwise agreement. This paper argues that these proxies are misleading because they are dominated by close‑rank‑gap pairs, which contribute little to the overall ranking, while far‑gap pairs carry the true ranking signal. Experiments on simulations and human‑rated corpora show weak correlation between the proxies and actual ranking accuracy, suggesting judges should be evaluated using rank‑gap‑conditional metrics against human rankings.
arXiv:2605. 15416v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Jung et al.
arXiv:2601.13885v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Computerized Adaptive Testing (CAT) has proven effective for efficient LLM evaluation on multiple-choice benchmarks, but modern LLM evaluatio...
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.
arXiv:2606. 13221v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Evaluating new large language models typically requires costly human annotation campaigns at scale.
Large Language Models (LLMs) as judges across various scenarios such as assessing model responses is becoming an increasingly accepted paradigm. However, existing judgment approaches often rely on trained judgers using fixed preference data, which tend to overlook diverse user preferences and struggle to adapt to real-world human-AI dialogue scenarios.
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: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.
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:2601. 21816v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Evaluating the performance of large language models (LLMs) from human preference data is crucial for obtaining LLM leaderboards.
The paper argues that the current LLM-as-a-judge evaluation method, which compensates for systematic measurement bias by increasing the number of comparisons, is statistically unsound and computationally wasteful. It identifies that treating LLM judges as neutral ignores documented biases such as position bias, verbosity bias, judge severity, and self‑enhancement. The authors propose a unified latent variable framework that jointly models pairwise and ordinal data while explicitly correcting for these confounders, enabling reliable rankings with far fewer comparisons and negligible additional compute.