The paper introduces NAPHA, a lightweight post‑hoc alignment method that improves large language model (LLM) predictions of human judgment distributions (HJD) by matching LLM output distributions to HJD through entropy‑based class assignment and specialized alignment models. Experiments on five datasets show that while LLMs perform near human‑level on hard‑label tasks, they struggle with soft‑label predictions, and NAPHA consistently enhances soft‑label accuracy, especially on high‑entropy instances. The study also demonstrates that better entropy class prediction can further boost NAPHA’s effectiveness.
arXiv:2607. 22766v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The alignment of Large Language Models (LLMs) is increasingly bottlenecked by data quality.
arXiv:2608. 19689v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM-based social simulation is a promising complement to traditional methods such as surveys and behavioral experiments.
arXiv:2606. 05376v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Many human-centered tasks, including natural language inference (NLI) and emotion recognition (ER), have multiple plausible interpretations, leading to label ambiguity and challenging disagreements across human annotators.
LLM-based social simulation is a promising complement to traditional methods such as surveys and behavioral experiments. A core question is how to evaluate the fidelity of LLM-simulated human behavior...
The paper introduces JudgeBiasBench, a benchmark that systematically quantifies judgment biases in large language model (LLM)-based judges across four dimensions and 12 bias types. It evaluates both generative and discriminative judges, revealing significant bias patterns that undermine reliability. The authors propose bias-aware training—reinforcement learning for generative judges and contrastive learning for discriminative judges—to reduce these biases while maintaining evaluation performance.
The paper investigates how large language models (LLMs) used as judges in absolute scoring tasks exhibit systematic biases that compromise reliability. It shows that a judge’s task accuracy strongly predicts both its judging accuracy and its directional bias, yet more capable examinee models consistently receive more lenient judgments. To mitigate these biases, the authors propose a calibrated weighted majority voting (WMV) ensemble that estimates judges’ error rates from inter-judge agreement patterns, achieving near-oracle performance without labeled data and improving both accuracy and fairness.
The paper proposes a two‑stage framework, SL+LHF, that first learns low‑dimensional representations from noisy labeled data and then refines model alignment using human comparison feedback via a probabilistic bisection approach. It introduces the label‑noise‑to‑comparison‑accuracy (LNCA) ratio to theoretically identify when this framework outperforms pure supervised learning, showing that trading labels for comparisons reduces sample complexity when labels are scarce. Experiments on a high‑dimensional crowdfunding prediction task and an Amazon Mechanical Turk study confirm that incorporating human or large language model evaluators improves accuracy under a fixed query budget.
arXiv:2410. 13341v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: High quality annotations are increasingly a bottleneck in the explosively growing machine learning ecosystem.
The paper introduces LongJudgeBench, a benchmark designed to evaluate large language models (LLMs) acting as judges for long-form text generation. It highlights that long-form evaluation requires complex, document-level assessments beyond simple length, such as organization, coverage, depth, consistency, and scenario-specific quality. Experiments show a significant reliability gap among current LLM judges, indicating instability across scenarios and limited effectiveness of rubrics or references.
arXiv:2608.29948v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating data-text alignment remains challenging: existing metrics often provide limited explanations for the scores, while prompt-based LLM-as-Judge...
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:2511. 14117v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Supervised classifiers output a distribution over classes but are typically trained against a single label obtained by collapsing multiple annotators into a majority vote.