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: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: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:2605. 15416v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Jung et al.
arXiv:2606. 13221v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Evaluating new large language models typically requires costly human annotation campaigns at scale.
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.
arXiv:2608.21374v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Literature reviews are essential to scientific progress, but rigorously evaluating automatically generated reviews remains difficult because many aspec...
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.
The paper introduces DECO, a diagnostic framework that factorises content into independent moderation criteria, allowing controlled evaluation of large language models (LLMs) at the criterion level. Using pairwise evaluation across four datasets and four LLMs, the authors find that high aggregate benchmark scores can mask significant failures when decisions hinge on specific content aspects required by individual criteria. The study underscores that aggregated labels do not guarantee reliable criterion-conditioned performance, highlighting the need for evaluation methods that explicitly assess this behavior.
arXiv:2609.24516v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In recent years, large language models (LLMs) have emerged as a popular alternative for evaluation. Often referred to as LLMs as judges (LLJs), these s...
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.
The paper introduces DECO, a diagnostic tool that factorises content into independent criteria for evaluating large language models (LLMs) on content moderation tasks. Using DECO and pairwise evaluation across four datasets and four LLMs, the authors find that high benchmark scores can mask significant failures at the criterion level, especially when decisions hinge on specific content aspects rather than overall harmfulness. The study underscores that aggregated label performance does not guarantee reliable criterion-conditioned evaluation, calling for new methods that explicitly assess this behavior.