The paper discusses how large language models (LLMs) are used in various evaluation roles—examining benchmarks, judging other models, and rating human content—and frames each as a measurement problem. It proposes using Rasch measurement theory (RMT) to decompose ordinal ratings into distinct facets on a common scale, offering diagnostics for miscalibration and rater bias. A case study applying RMT to the Measuring Hate Speech corpus reveals systematic differences between LLMs and human raters in severity, calibration, robustness, sensitivity, and scale use, suggesting RMT should be part of the evaluation toolkit for LLMs in all roles.
Large language models (LLMs) are widely used as automatic judges, with validity typically assessed via alignment with human scores. However, aggregate agreement fails to reveal whether humans and LLMs...
The paper investigates how well large language models (LLMs) can serve as judges in summarization evaluation by applying psychometric techniques. Using Many‑Facet Rasch Models, the authors decompose human and LLM ratings into latent summary quality, rater severity, dimension severity, and rating‑scale thresholds, and introduce a residual hardness metric to capture judging difficulty. Their analysis of 17 open‑weight LLM judges on the SummEval dataset reveals that moderate alignment in latent quality does not translate to alignment in residual hardness; humans and LLMs differ in which summary–dimension units are hard, with LLMs tending to find consistency hard and humans tending to find coherence hard, and some hard cases can be predicted from observable source–summary properties.
arXiv:2608.29517v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as essay graders in learning analytics, evaluated almost exclusively with agreement statistics. Educ...
arXiv:2608. 05086v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Language models differ in how safely they behave and these differences are measured by safety benchmarks.
arXiv:2009. 10277v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: We propose a system for measuring hate speech on a continuous, interval-valued spectrum ranging from genocidal to supportive speech by combining supervised deep learning with faceted Rasch item response theory (IRT).
The study investigates how different rating scale designs affect scores produced by large language models (LLMs) in text scoring tasks. By varying format, range, and sign across tasks like political leaning, sentiment, and toxicity, the authors find that a single design change can shift normalized scores by about 0.10 and alter the category of roughly 20% of texts. The research highlights that rubric-based prompting does not mitigate this sensitivity and emphasizes the need for robustness checks when using LLMs for scalar scoring.
arXiv:2609.13824v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to evaluate the responses of other language models. This approach, known as LLM-as-a-Judge, is faste...
arXiv:2604. 06996v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: LLM-as-a-judge has become the de facto approach for evaluating LLM outputs.
arXiv:2610.05094v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Researchers increasingly use Large Language Models as judges (LLM-as-a-judge) to evaluate model outputs. Yet there are no standards for how to design...
arXiv:2609.08797v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The Potts model extends the Ising model to multinomial data. We introduce a Rater Ising-Potts model that uses agreement indicators between pa...
arXiv:2601.08654v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Rubric-based text evaluation increasingly relies on large language models (LLMs) as scalable judges, yet frozen black-box models can interpret the...
arXiv:2606. 09843v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) give stable answers to personality questionnaires, yet these self-reports fail to predict how the models behave.